Tune in!

Would that be on the Speed channel? Or is there another channel it's on?

TNN... CDTV is on TNN Saturdays at 1:00 PM and Sundays at 12:30 PM (Eastern and Pacific). Check local listings and satellite-dish electronic schedules for your area.

Got the cams ready to capture it, right? :)

Tivo :)

Yeah, me too Herc! I swear I don't know what we did without it- going on 2 1/2 years now, and I still think it's one of the best things we ever bought.

Cool. Someone remind me closer to the date, my memory is like a siv lately. A private message will do nicely. :D

Originally posted by Elara
Yeah, me too Herc! I swear I don't know what we did without it- going on 2 1/2 years now, and I still think it's one of the best things we ever bought. My friends still don't understand but I'd shoot myself if I had to be without it :)

On that note, I'm gonna make this a temporary sticky. ;)

I can turn it into a Quicktime and post it on the web for all to enjoy!

Do you have to even ask? Do it! :)

what month is that?
________
AVANDIA WITHDRAW (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

This month, next week :)

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
I can turn it into a Quicktime and post it on the web for all to enjoy!

Stupid question! :D

I'm in Europe so I can't see the blody channel anyway.. so pleas do post it on your website!

// magnus

Would anyone know if that is Episode 78 ? That is the listing I find for this weekend of C & D on TNN. The only vehicle mentioned by name is the Viper.

I found my listing - it shows Viper for this area too - anyone know?

The RX-8 will be on episode 78 check out the listing here.

Just scroll down to the Feb 22nd - .... portion and you will see a brief description.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/cdtv/cdtv.xml

*bawling eyes out* THERE IS NO WAY I"LL BE ABLE TO SEE THIS ON TV!! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD IN THE WORLD PLEASE PLEASE A THOUSAND TIMES PLEASE RECORD THIS, AND PUT IT IN A FORMAT I CAN READ!! (... like a wmv format er something...)

thanks in advance... :D

MPEG please... i can actually view MPEG at work...

I was pretty disappointed ... just some twisties footage and background info...

Just got done watching the segment, which lasted ~ 6 minutes. No comparisons made to other vehicles with footage of the Red RX-8 going around Laguna Seca.

Now it's time to get a hold of mine for my own test drive...every day !!

Just saw the RX-8 on C&D television. They seemed to really like the car. Two things were mentioned as shortcomings.

1 Lack of low end torque
2 Needs more horsepower.

I'm not an expert, but I still think this car drives like a screamer!!

Love the exhaust sound under acceleration!!

cool

Love those power-slides! YooHoo!!

The 5.9 sec 0-60 sounded good to me. :)

Not bad, plus they had some nice FD footage. :cool:

0-60 in 5.9. Not bad.

That hostess is super annoying.

Edit: There's a rerun tomorrow (Sunday) at 12:30 pm on TNN for those of you that missed it today.
http://www.thenewtnn.com/schedule/index.jhtml?day=1&zone=

I love the sound, video and 5.9 0-60 to boot. Great review!

I already have it recorded. I am now converting it to MPEG.

My MPEG convert is done and I'm uploading it to my webserver now.
The first 10-15 secs or so of intro are cut off but all the RX-8 footage is intact.


edit: here it is!
MPEG Clip of RX-8 on C&D TV
720kbps MPEG-1 CBR
112kbps Stereo Audio
File Size: 23,177KB
Mirror 1 (http://www.laferle.com/rx8/rx8sm.mpg)
Mirror 2 (http://crazifuzzy.dynip.com/rx8sm.mpeg) -- thanks CraziFuzzy!
Right click and hit Save Target As...

Please mirror this, as I will remove the file after today due to bandwidth restraints.

Thanks laferle!

Much appreciated. I watched it on TV but I do want a copy for my PC to archive :)

laferle,

thank you for getting these up so quick, they really made me grin from ear to ear.

thanks,
james

I also recorded the entire segment and encoded it to MPEG, but don't have anywhere to host it. :(

MPEG:
4min 50sec
320 x 240 29.97fps
600kbps VBR MPEG-1
160kbps stereo
26.2 MB

Originally posted by Maurice
Just saw the RX-8 on C&D television. They seemed to really like the car. Two things were mentioned as shortcomings.

1 Lack of low end torque
2 Needs more horsepower.


To me, the lack of torque is really just a result of the power band being so linear. There's no place it really peaks, but instead, it has smooth power delivery throughout the rev range.

Also, I prefer a drivng style of sticking it in the corners, rather than trying to break the tires loose and power slide through them (as the C&D drivers were attempting in the footage). Power sliding on asphalt seems to be inefficient and time consuming. I think the RX-8 will excel at sticking itself in the apex and gluing itself to the pavement, in part, due to the lack of "peaky" torque.

Just my opinion... I'm not worried about maximum torque.

Can anyone mirror my MPEG? I'm sorta taking one for the team here on my bandwidth allocation :)

I just finished watching the review that I taped, all i have to say is WOW

they were allowed to drift that car around the corner!!!! :eek:

looks so much fun!!!!

best video review EVAR!

Originally posted by ZoomZoomH
I just finished watching the review that I taped, all i have to say is WOW

they were allowed to drift that car around the corner!!!! :eek:

looks so much fun!!!!

best video review EVAR!

lol its the ONLY video review EVAR!

why does it say 247hp but list 250hp?

wow thats some amazing drifting!!!

let them host it here! PLEAAAAAAASSSSSSSEEEEEEE
i missed it today, and im going to miss it tomorow as well.
________
CREAMPIE INTERNAL (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/464/internal/videos/1)

Originally posted by laferle
Can anyone mirror my MPEG? I'm sorta taking one for the team here on my bandwidth allocation :)

CraziFuzzy's Mirror (http://crazifuzzy.dynip.com/rx8sm.mpeg)

There ya go! :D

I have some running around to do, but I will later capture a full-res version for everyone's archives... This should at least get everyone who can't watch the show, C&D's opinion on what we already know as being an awesome car...

I am uploading another mirror now...

Rob

Done..

RX-8 Vid (http://www.rzatek.com/rx8sm.mpg)

Originally posted by Digisan
Done..
RX-8 Vid (http://www.rzatek.com/rx8sm.mpg)

Thanks Laf, Crazy, Digi!

Sharing the load:

RX-8 Vid (ftp://RX-8:Renesis@ftp.snikte.net/rx8sm.mpg)

Downloading now!

Thanks for this guys, I'll see if someone on the europe forum can mirror for us in the UK.

Can't wait, but with dial up I'll have to!:(

stunned silence is all i can muster... i still can't believe how legitimately fast this sucker is... i just can't f*ckin' believe it... wow...

It is very impressive - but after seeing the C&D video I downloaded the Best Motoring ones - holy crap, words fail me. But then I suppose that driver could make a Corolla look damn fast.

Awesome video, awesome drifts!

am i the only one just getting the Audio?
________
Iolite Vaporizer (http://iolitevaporizer.net/)

nm, just my player was shrunk and moved somewhere
________
Weed (http://wwweed.com/)

jesus that is freking insane.
________
Yamaha Yz450F Specifications (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_YZ450F)

Very nice video..loved the drifting :D :D :D


Can anyone who has seen the velocity red rx8 in person and on Car and Driver TV comment as to whether the color looks the same or different in person than in the TV show?

That velocity red looked dam good on the show....speeding tickets be damned!!!! :D

Saw the Car And Driver TV episode today with the RX-8. It sounds as though they loved the car, but as usual, the main complaint is the lack of power, or rather, torque. 0-60mph in 5.9s is respectable, but not outstanding. I still think it beats most other coupes out there (I'm thinking specifically of the G-35), but the 8 will need boost to compete with the likes of the Evo VIII and STi.

That velocity red looks exactly like the color on the car in Detroit- that was one of the first things I noticed when I was watching it yesterday.

I can't imagine how much more throw-you-back-in-your-seat you can want than 5.9 secs 0-60...good grief. There aren't tons of cars this cheap that can handle that. Can we say "picky?" He was just confused by the gear transistions, or something. What a goof.

Originally posted by Schneegz
Saw the Car And Driver TV episode today with the RX-8. It sounds as though they loved the car, but as usual, the main complaint is the lack of power, or rather, torque. 0-60mph in 5.9s is respectable, but not outstanding. I still think it beats most other coupes out there (I'm thinking specifically of the G-35), but the 8 will need boost to compete with the likes of the Evo VIII and STi. No, it won't.

If people are looking at the RX-8 for a drag racer they are looking at the wrong car. The Evo and STi are just econoboxes meant to go really fast and have a good AWD system. Everything inside them sucks.

Besides the quote I posted earlier already suggests the Renesis will not get turboed, but rather get larger rotors.

I'm not suggesting that the Evo or the STi are better cars overall than the RX-8. I am only stating that the Evo and STi are right in the 8's price range and both will probably outperform the 8 on all points. A recent Road & Track article showed the Evo VIII running from 0-60 in 5.1s, pulling .97g on the skidpad (same as a Vette Z06) and running the slalom at over 68mph (slightly FASTER than the Z06). VERY impressive, especially for a sub-$30K, 4-cyl, 4-door.

Granted, the ride and interior of the Evo are probably FAR inferior to that of the RX-8. And I realize the 8 is not a drag racer. The 8 is all about handling. Well, the Evo, at least, obviously handles right up there with a Corvette Z06, one of the best-handling cars you can buy.

Don't get me wrong. The RX-8 is obviously a great car, and its shape is much sexier than pretty much anything out there right now, but I think it has a little catching up to do in the performance department. Just a little.

Originally posted by Schneegz
Don't get me wrong

that's the millionth time I've read that stupid escape clause on all the car forums I visit. If you have problem with the power output ON PAPER of the RENESIS, just say it and stop sugarcoating to avoid the flaming :mad:

Much is said about how great the Evo and Sti could perform, but I would love to hear about what the long term reliability is like for those 2 cars. While it is a fact that a well maintained NA rotary can last into the 200k range, I serious question whether the Evo and Sti can last 100k without some major repairs. Judging from some of the British magazines, it seems that at least the Evo is a very high maintenance vehicle (one car had 2 clutches replaced after only 6000 miles!)

I predict the Evo and Sti will be great cars for 1 or 2 years, and then stuff will start to fall apart (I wonder how many 5.1s 0-60 runs you can make before you fry the clutch). On top of that, I just couldn't handle the fast and the furious image associated with those cars. I think I will stick with the Rx-8 and then the next Rx-7.

Originally posted by Schneegz
I'm not suggesting that the Evo or the STi are better cars overall than the RX-8. I am only stating that the Evo and STi are right in the 8's price range and both will probably outperform the 8 on all points. A recent Road & Track article showed the Evo VIII running from 0-60 in 5.1s, pulling .97g on the skidpad (same as a Vette Z06) and running the slalom at over 68mph (slightly FASTER than the Z06). VERY impressive, especially for a sub-$30K, 4-cyl, 4-door.

Granted, the ride and interior of the Evo are probably FAR inferior to that of the RX-8. And I realize the 8 is not a drag racer. The 8 is all about handling. Well, the Evo, at least, obviously handles right up there with a Corvette Z06, one of the best-handling cars you can buy.

Don't get me wrong. The RX-8 is obviously a great car, and its shape is much sexier than pretty much anything out there right now, but I think it has a little catching up to do in the performance department. Just a little.
No, the Evo and STi will not outperform the RX-8 on all points.

They will not pass the 'fun factor' test that is inherent with RWD cars and limited with AWD cars.

They will not be as controllable in the corners (for a slide as example). They will have massive grip and that's great... but I like to have fun.

If you want to put out tests like the slalom... the Mazda Protege MP3 was also reviewed in Road and Track's edition that featured cars with "Great Grip!" (as was the article named), and guess what.. the MP3 had a better slalom than the Vette as well.

Do you want to know WHY? The MP3 is lighter than a Vette. As a result when cornering and turning, much less mass is thrown from side to side allowing the car to achieve a higher slalom.

For you to compare a RWD car to an AWD car shows that you read the magazines for your performance, and don't drive the cars. When it comes down to it you'll see why the RX-8 is *not* going to be reviewed in the breath of the Evo and STi, because it's a car for a different market, a different buyer, and both trying to achieve different goals.

Put it against its own competition... Four seat cars that are RWD and good horsepower -- the BMW 330Ci, G35 Coupe, even the 350Z, Lotus Elise etc... No magazine pins AWD cars against RWD cars unless that car is specifically aiming to unseat a RWD car. Case in point (and failure in point), the new Audi S4 is Audi's entry against the BMW M3 and every review I've read thus far gives the Audi points 'on paper' for the performance, and it does deliver it... but the M3 always wins for sheer driving excitement.

I think the same case applies to the RX-8. Hope that clears it up... most people on this board realize that you can't compare the driving dynamics of an AWD car to a RWD car, just because of the sheer amount of understeer programmed into AWD cars. The only AWD car that is the exception to that, is the Nissan Skyline... but that's because at speed, the AWD turns into a RWD system.

Sigh....why do you get so defensive whenever someone questions the RX8?

Originally posted by Hercules

No, the Evo and STi will not outperform the RX-8 on all points.

They will not pass the 'fun factor' test that is inherent with RWD cars and limited with AWD cars.

Granted there are differences between AWD cars and RWD cars, but to say one is absolutely more fun is YOUR opinion and not the established fact you make it out to be.

Originally posted by Hercules They will not be as controllable in the corners (for a slide as example). They will have massive grip and that's great... but I like to have fun. [/B]

Again Hercules definition of fun must apply for everyone???


Originally posted by Hercules If you want to put out tests like the slalom... the Mazda Protege MP3 was also reviewed in Road and Track's edition that featured cars with "Great Grip!" (as was the article named), and guess what.. the MP3 had a better slalom than the Vette as well.

Do you want to know WHY? The MP3 is lighter than a Vette. As a result when cornering and turning, much less mass is thrown from side to side allowing the car to achieve a higher slalom. [/B]


Hmm...its that simple, right???? Then how come the ~3,250 lb. EVO's slalom speed (68.7 for the EVO VII in the "Great Grip" Article and also on the US EVO VIII from the previously mentioned Road and Track article) exceeds the lighter Z06 (3,118 lbs according to Edmunds) time of 67.3 ("Great Grip" article).

The truth is there are a few more variables. I wondered about why sometimes lesser cars performed relatively well against more performance-oriented cars and posted the question in the following thread:

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1426

Another interesting post about skidpad and slalom performance tests from the WRX forum:

http://www.wrxforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000538





Originally posted by Hercules
For you to compare a RWD car to an AWD car shows that you read the magazines for your performance, and don't drive the cars. When it comes down to it you'll see why the RX-8 is *not* going to be reviewed in the breath of the Evo and STi, because it's a car for a different market, a different buyer, and both trying to achieve different goals.

Put it against its own competition... Four seat cars that are RWD and good horsepower -- the BMW 330Ci, G35 Coupe, even the 350Z, Lotus Elise etc... No magazine pins AWD cars against RWD cars unless that car is specifically aiming to unseat a RWD car. Case in point (and failure in point), the new Audi S4 is Audi's entry against the BMW M3 and every review I've read thus far gives the Audi points 'on paper' for the performance, and it does deliver it... but the M3 always wins for sheer driving excitement.

I think the same case applies to the RX-8. Hope that clears it up... most people on this board realize that you can't compare the driving dynamics of an AWD car to a RWD car, just because of the sheer amount of understeer programmed into AWD cars. The only AWD car that is the exception to that, is the Nissan Skyline... but that's because at speed, the AWD turns into a RWD system. [/B]


Don't forget understeer CAN be programmed into any vehicle, even RWD cars. So, every AWD (except the skyline) has such huge amounts of understeer to the point that they are crappy handlers??? Perhaps you should inform the editors at EVO and CAR magazine of this oversight in their rave reviews over the years of various WRXs and EVOs. According to Road and Track, the US EVO VIII "slightly understeers in tight hairpins, however in all other types of corners, it exhibits near-neutal balance."

As for what and what not should be compared to the RX8, what you state is for Hercules, not EVERYONE (though you imply it as a fact). You could split cars into so many categories to the point where each model could have a monopoly over its "class." The truth is a lot of people cross-shop different cars, especially ones that are similarly priced and are built to be fun. In fact I am one of them as the RX8 and Lancer Evolution VIII are my top choices (though I am leaning heavily towards the RX8 because I do prefer lighter weight and RWD). Hell even consumer reports compared the WRX and the FWD RSX-S when both were new, so I don't see why a car mag won't eventually do some kind of comparison test that includes the RX8 and an AWD vehicle.

I am going to have to support Herc on this point. The Evo and STi cannot possibly beat out the 8 on all points.

Everyone wants something different out of a car. That is why there are so many out there, it isn't a one car fits all market.

Personally for me, I need a car that has a decent ride, (i.e. better than my 99 Miata), has four seats, handles great (i.e. like the Miata), has some get-up-&-go, and looks good too. Plus I do a lot of traveling and winter driving so things like a Navigation system, and heated exterior mirrors and seats, which to some may be a novelty, are a necessity to me. And it always helps to be able to squeez a couple of golf bags in the trunk for the occasional lunch time outing.

The 8 provides me with this "whole package" that I am looking for and frankly the others don't. Hell, I really wanted to buy a Z when they came out, but I had to give up too much of what I wanted.

So I really don't think you can make a blanket statement like the "all points" one and not expect a few people to jump all over you about it. I wouldn't say Herc is being defensive at all.

Quick

Where are you located quick8?
IF Mazda hadn't made suggestions about producing the RX-8 these past few years I'd have strongly considered a WRX - the local dealer wasn't too interested in letting me drive one when I told him I had an RX on order - his loss - if I were a sales person I'd let my AWD performance icon do the talking for me - a short stint behind that Momo wheel in what have been described as great driving seats would convince many to buy a WRX that may otherwise leave his parking lot. At any rate - I have a Subaru XT6 fulltime AWD for the snow and winter while the Miata sits undercover. I've had 3 other Subarus, starting with a 73 1300cc DL through my first new car - a 82 GL-10. Have had 5 RX-7s, the last one still alive and recently shod with new tires compliments of it's current owner back in TX. It has to have close to 200K on it by now. One lady I've corresponded with on our ordered RX-8s has an 88 GXL with over 300K on it. THAT is one of the great things about rotaries besides how light and smooth they are - they are tremendously reliable (3 moving parts). My LARGEST concern with a WRX and even more so with anything beginning with 'Mitsu' would be long term reliability (clutch, electronics, turbo, engine itself) - say, past 100K, definitely past 150K. The positives and negatives can objectively be compared easily. The subjective part is where personal preferences and perceptions prevail and persuade one to buy a WRX, an EVO, a Vette, or, my choice, hands down, before I sit in the car, no doubt in my mind, an RX-8!
It's the overall package that is a winner for me: Renesis, real 4 person seating, reliability, on track performance that I'll probably never quite fully explore, on road fun, winding those two rotors out to 9000+ at will, the quiet engine that may need a more open exhaust to let the rotary sound out more, etc. etc. etc.

I don't know why anyone would feel the need to defend the RX-8 at all. It's not a damsel in distress or some helpless three-legged puppy. It's a great car and it will stand on its own. All that matter, are your own personal reasons for buying the car. As for why I chose the RX-8: I like the high-revving rotary engine, the promised of nimble handling, its small size, and I absolutely love the styling.

But I have to concede, the RX-8 overall performance will probably not surpass nor equal that of the EVO and STi. Put on the same track, those two cars will likely outrun the RX-8 (driven equally). But that's not important to me. If it was, I would put my money on those cars instead. As is, I'm putting my money on what I love, the RX-8.

The EVO VIII and STi are appliances for speed. I spend about 20 hours a week in a car. If all of that time was spent on a track at 9/10ths or more (and someone else was paying for tyres/brakes/clutch etc) then I would seriously consider one of these vehicles if limited to $32k.

However I don't - and things other than pure performance appeal to me sometimes - the quality of the leather and plastics, the sound system (although BOSE is usually crap it may be OK in the RX-8), style, service, overall comfort, even quietness and luxury when I want it. I think the RX-8 (and G35C and BMWs etc) are a far better all-round package than the one-dimensional EVO/STi (and look infinitely better to boot).

To put it into perspective - I've probably read 5-6 reviews of a Porsche 911 Turbo against a Ferrari 360 Modena or Spyder. In every case the review spends several pages talking about how much faster the 911 Turbo is in every gear, at every speed, in the corners etc. In every case the Ferrari wins the comparison - it can actually be ENJOYED in ANY gear and at ANY speed (even stationary it is a work of art) - and the Porsche can only be enjoyed at 9/10ths and above (the reviews are where I got my term 'appliance for speed').

The package as a whole, under conditions where you spend 99% of your time, is much better. The main thing that appeals to me about a Miata (I may pick up a '94 next year to fix my convertible lust) is that it can put a huge grin on your face without even breaking the speed limit - now THAT'S performance IMO.

I think that some of you are underestimating the RX-8's track potential.

To use the FD as an example - the 911 Turbo had WAY more power, AND shorter braking distances, yet the FD still turned lower track times with the same driver. The FD could win because it was lighter, the weight in the car was placed more optimally, and had a better suspention.

The RX-8 handles even better than the FD (according to an FD owner), and compares to the STi/Evo the same way the FD compared to the 911 turbo.

Remeber, the RX-8 pulled a 1:50 at Laguna Seca, which is neck-and-neck with an Acura NSX. So at the very least, I think we can say that the RX-8 would be a serious contender with the STi/Evo on a road course.

Hercules:

First of all, I made it quite clear that I never said the Evo and STi were BETTER CARS than the 8. I said they would PERFORM BETTER. I'm talking specifically about hard numbers here, nothing more.

Second, "fun factor" is NOT a measure of performance. Once again, I'm talking EXCLUSIVELY about hard numbers. "Fun factor" is NOT quantifiable.

Third, I never used "don't get me wrong" as an escape clause. I was clarifying that I believe the RX-8 is a great all-around car even if it does not outperform the Evo or STi. I also made it quite clear that I do wish the 8 came with more power and torque. Period. No escape clause necessary.

I WILL test drive all three cars when I get the chance and pick between them then on ALL factors, not just hard performance numbers. Until then, my statement that the Evo and STi will PROBABLY beat the 8 on all points of pure performance is correct. The same is true about the 350Z, but you don't see me standing in line at the Nissan dealership, do you?

I'll let you slide on your points, as I don't have data to prove mine either.

However, on the fun factor.. it *is* quantifiable. Why do you think the BMW M5 (in a recent review) was favored over the faster Mercedes and faster Audi RS6? Because it was simply MORE FUN. Car magazines will use that type of reviewing simply because when you're behind the wheel of a SPORTS car or even sports sedan, the goal is essentially to enjoy yourself. So sure you can go down the straights faster in an RS6 or Merc, but the BMW will still leave you grinning ear to ear.

And that my friend, is what really matters in SPORTS cars. If people are going to race these cars you'd be they will be dumping money in the right places to mod the car to their specs. Occasional track days and autocross are not really going to prove the performance numbers that the Evo/STi MAY or MAY NOT deliver (in comparison to the RX-8).

Time will tell, but the RX-8 is the most fun car just due to the fact it's RWD... and that's reason enough for me to throw the Evo/STi out of the picture. I'd put the G35 Coupe or 350Z against it but I was never a fan of their quality or styling. Their exteriors have grown on me but I choke when I see/feel the inside.

Originally posted by Hercules
I'll let you slide on your points, as I don't have data to prove mine either.

However, on the fun factor.. it *is* quantifiable. Why do you think the BMW M5 (in a recent review) was favored over the faster Mercedes and faster Audi RS6? Because it was simply MORE FUN. Car magazines will use that type of reviewing simply because when you're behind the wheel of a SPORTS car or even sports sedan, the goal is essentially to enjoy yourself. So sure you can go down the straights faster in an RS6 or Merc, but the BMW will still leave you grinning ear to ear.

And that my friend, is what really matters in SPORTS cars. If people are going to race these cars you'd be they will be dumping money in the right places to mod the car to their specs. Occasional track days and autocross are not really going to prove the performance numbers that the Evo/STi MAY or MAY NOT deliver (in comparison to the RX-8).

Time will tell, but the RX-8 is the most fun car just due to the fact it's RWD... and that's reason enough for me to throw the Evo/STi out of the picture. I'd put the G35 Coupe or 350Z against it but I was never a fan of their quality or styling. Their exteriors have grown on me but I choke when I see/feel the inside.

Again you are projecting YOUR personal opinion as an undisputable fact. A lot of people feel RWD is more fun, but there are many who feel AWD is a more exciting experience. They offer two different experiences, which different people have different perceptions of. One example I can think of where I would prefer a rally car is on tight mountain roads (perhaps having a few bumps and snow piles on the side...such as the last few weeks in the northeast). As for your reference to the M5 comparison test, I'm sure I can find many comparison tests calling an AWD car more fun than a RWD car (i..e WRX, 911 turbo). For what its worth, EVO magazine has continually given rave reviews of EVOs and STIs and gives the US/Japanese/European EVO VIII 4.5 stars and gives the RX8 4 stars.

The bottom line is these are two different recipes for providing fun. Personally, I prefer the light, high reving RWD option ( we agree!!!!) to the AWD point and shoot smiley face method. I look for great clutch action, a slick gearbox, agility/tossability more than monsterous acceleration and ultimate grip. I prefer a sexy/curvy (read sports car) exterior, but don't care too much about interior "quality" or creature comforts as long as its not really cheesy (i.e. faux wood).

However, that doesn't mean I can't appreciate or wouldn't have any fun in a rally inspired car. Its kind of like music..hard rock is my favorite type of music, but I also like hip hop too. While I may like my favorite hard rock band more than any hip hop artist, there are many good hip hop artists that I prefer to some pretty mediocre/bad hard rock groups. If the RX8 executes as I hope, it shouldn't be a tough decision. If its watered down, the well-excecuted rally inspired car (at least so far as I have seen) known as the EVO VIII could be chosen (BTW....I do think a rally inspired car is a much easier design to execute).

Please find me an article then, that shows a SIMILAR AWD car being more fun than a RWD car. You know, a S4 vs M3 type of comparison, not a Miata vs Porsche 911.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by Hercules
Please find me an article then, that shows a SIMILAR AWD car being more fun than a RWD car. You know, a S4 vs M3 type of comparison, not a Miata vs Porsche 911.

Best of luck.

I would like to see that one myself.

Originally posted by Hercules
Please find me an article then, that shows a SIMILAR AWD car being more fun than a RWD car. You know, a S4 vs M3 type of comparison, not a Miata vs Porsche 911.

Best of luck.

Perhaps, you should have read the article you previously referenced? The "Great Grip" article from Road and Track ranked thje AWD EVO VII 4th and the RWD M3 7th? Since I think we agree that handling is the biggest element of "fun", then this is a pretty good indicator of which is more "fun." I guess they are not "similar" since the high output Mitsubishi is >$10,000 cheaper!:confused:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=220&page=8


We can also look at the following article from EVO magazine where the WRX STI gets 5 stars compared to the 4.5 stars fro the M3. As with British magazines, the descriptions of the experiences of the cars is much more telling:

"lambering out of the Lotus and into the big, roomy Impreza is as big a change of scenery as the Elise was after the Civic. It feels good, your hips and ribs squeezed by a seriously supportive seat, feet resting on a set of well-placed alloy pedals. It all helps you to discover an immediate level of confidence. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the psychological effect of the Impreza's stout four-door saloon stance and the added security four-wheel drive gives. Whatever, freed from the nagging fears of excessive understeer or oversteer you're left simply with the task of driving quickly.

With front and rear limited-slip differentials, linked by a viscous centre coupling, the STi feels a very different beast to the standard WRX. The steering is a smidge heavier and while it still lacks the super-detailed, granular feel of the Elise, the stiffer suspension brings with it a greater sense of connection. Drive to standard WRX limits and you'll find the STi shares a similar desire to understeer. Don't be fooled. Get the nose turned in, keep squeezing on the power and you'll feel the steering weight-up in your hands, like torque steer only without the wild deflection from your chosen course. The nose does begin to straighten slightly, requiring you to flex your forearms to stay on line, but stay committed and you can feel the power get redirected through the viscous coupling towards the rear, taking that initial power understeer with it. From this point on, the STi's balance is tail-led. You feel each individual tyre working to find grip, each corner of the car pummelling and digging at the tarmac, generating sensational levels of drive and traction. This is where the STi gets in the zone, the point at which it feels most alive.

The thing that never ceases to amaze is the sheer speed you can carry into any given corner, on any surface in any weather. Quite simply, nothing can live with its ability to absorb such dynamic punishment and adapt to the ever-changing demands of an unfamiliar road. Bumps, crests and tricky cambers? No problem. It's so fast on such a wide range of roads you can't help thinking it shouldn't be allowed.

There's huge overtaking power, too. You just can't beat a turbocharged car for that raw, ballistic rush, and from 3500rpm the STi flies. By 7000rpm the real fire has subsided (thank the Type-UK's extra catalyst for that) but by then whatever was in front of you will be a receding speck in your rear-view mirror. The STi's six-speed 'box helps maximise the thrust, with the intermediate ratios able to dispatch any corner you care to imagine with a full-boost flourish. It's not as manic as an Evo VII, and it's all the better for it. Each gear has an added urgency over and above the standard WRX; an increased ability to strain the tendons in your neck as boost pressure builds. Third and fourth are really impressive and it's these that do most of the work, even on surprisingly sinuous stretches. It still cruises well though; there's less than 3500rpm on the dial at 85mph, so motorways aren't a chore.

Big four-pot Brembo brakes at the front (two- potters at the rear) give the Impreza enormous stopping power. Initial pedal feel is a bit numb and they don't really bite when you gently cover the pedal, but once you're into the meat of the firm pedal's travel you can feel the pads chomp into the discs with conviction. Super Sport ABS takes readings from a lateral g sensor to increase the car's ability in trail-brake situations, and you have to be going mighty hard before the pedal will pulse beneath your foot. They feel well able to cope with anything you could throw at them.

It's easy to tell who's just stepped out of the STi; the ruddy-tinged face, glazed eyes and drugged smile are dead giveaways. Even Harry, a formerly reluctant Impreza admirer, appears to have been converted. 'Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. I even quite like the look of it! It's like the Integrale Evo – you really couldn't imagine having anything but the wide-arched, winged 'Grale. Well it's the same with the STi. It just looks so much more serious than the WRX.'

Roger, too, is convinced we're once again in the presence of greatness (and no, he's not talking about Harry): 'For the money you'd have to say it's a bit of a bargain. If an M3 can question your need to buy a 911, then this questions your need to buy an M3.' Quite.

Ah yes, the M3. A huge hit at last year's eCOTY contest (in conventional manual form), we brought along an SMG-equipped car to see if the rapid-shift sequential transmission raises the M3's game as a pure driving tool.

The paddles certainly make a huge difference to the way you drive the M3. At first you feel clumsy, flipping up and down for no particular reason and with no particular rhythm, but relax with the system and your timing returns. The biggest problem with it is the paddles themselves. They're just not long enough, especially when they lurk behind such a fat-rimmed steering wheel. Consequently when you curl your fingers out for a shift with the wheel pointing straight, chances are you'll flash the lights or squirt the screen washers. More frustratingly, when you reach for a paddle while applying steering lock (surely the whole reason for the paddle-shift system) it's all too easy to forget which side to flip. Mr Montoya might like his paddles attached to the back of his steering wheel, but he never needs to apply more than half a turn of lock. On the road, where full turns or more are often required, paddles fixed to the steering column would be a better solution.

In almost every other respect the SMG system is highly effective, heightening the excitement and involvement of a high-speed blat. I'm not noted for my love of these transmission systems, but even I would have a hard time choosing between manual and SMG. So too would Roger. 'It works so well you rarely feel like you're missing out by not having a manual 'box and it adds to the package without dominating the experience. Would I have one over the standard 'box? Dunno, but it's certainly the first one I'd consider having.' Harry is more decisive. 'I can't imagine having an M3 without it,' he says. Hayman just isn't convinced. 'The SMG gearbox works a treat if you like that sort of thing, he says, 'but I don't, and would have the manual every time. The paddle-shift just makes an already frantic and manic car even more aggressive.'
Transmission aside, there's a satisfying weight to the steering and other major controls, enough to make you feel involved at any rate. It needs more lock than you might expect to get it turned in, which makes it feel slower witted than it actually is. And if you switch off the ASR, as you surely will at some point, the rapidity with which the tail submits to 338bhp is an instant wake-up call that will require rapid armfuls of lock to catch. Once caught, the M-Diff and the M3's excellent weight distribution make it a straightforward beast to hold on to, but the transition from grip to slip is sharper and earlier than with the other cars here.

The biggest failing is the brakes, which lack staying power, even in hard road use. Charging along our valley road, the pedal became softer, the pads and discs eventually grinding and squealing in protest. From experience we know that track work kills them in three laps. Disappointing for a car so thoroughly engineered in every other area.

The over-riding impression of the M3 isn't its raw, balls-out ability but its super-consistent delivery. It might sound perverse, but it's this meticulous attention to the dynamic 'big picture' – the ability to carouse and cosset in equal measure – that is its undoing. Feedback is on a strictly need-to-know basis, and as the chassis is so darned competent and controllable (at least with ASR engaged) you don't need to know that much about the maelstrom occurring between tyres and tarmac. Too supple to feel noticeably more effective as you hit fast, smooth tarmac, too big and weighty to excel when the going gets bumpy-twisty, it simply tackles any road you care to throw at it in the same efficient, calculating manner. Consistently brilliant, it lacks the ability to deliver those fleeting moments of inspiration which the Mini, Elise and STi can serve up."


I'm not trying to prove AWD is better than RWD because frankly, I don't believe it to be! RWD allows a car to be lighter and suffer less drivetrain losses, which negate a lot of AWD's traction advantage as speed increases. In addition, a RWD car (all other things being equal) should be lighter and allow for a higher reving engine (as opposed to a turbo) which I prefer.

Still, my point is that you continually project your opinion as fact. You continually (and arrogantly) dismiss other opinions (and other cars for that matter) by portraying your personal views as the undisputable truth. I'm not the first to point this out, so perhaps you may want to slow your record number of posts a bit and THINK before you write sometimes.

rev, I guess I am biased not because of the fact that the RX-8 is RWD.. but I can do more stupid things in a RWD car than I could in a AWD car, and that is a measure of my personal fun factor.

That Evo article by the way, very good :) The STi has grown on me after reading that, but if Evo's writers weren't so darned good that would not be the case.

At any rate I'll stop before I keep getting shut up :) I think AWD has a place in fun factor but not *my* personal fun factor. I guess I can't see past it right now... maybe after somebody hands me the keys to an STi....

Originally posted by revhappy


Perhaps, you should have read the article you previously referenced? The "Great Grip" article from Road and Track ranked thje AWD EVO VII 4th and the RWD M3 7th? Since I think we agree that handling is the biggest element of "fun", then this is a pretty good indicator of which is more "fun." I guess they are not "similar" since the high output Mitsubishi is >$10,000 cheaper!:confused:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=220&page=8


We can also look at the following article from EVO magazine where the WRX STI gets 5 stars compared to the 4.5 stars fro the M3. As with British magazines, the descriptions of the experiences of the cars is much more telling:

"lambering out of the Lotus and into the big, roomy Impreza is as big a change of scenery as the Elise was after the Civic. It feels good, your hips and ribs squeezed by a seriously supportive seat, feet resting on a set of well-placed alloy pedals. It all helps you to discover an immediate level of confidence. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the psychological effect of the Impreza's stout four-door saloon stance and the added security four-wheel drive gives. Whatever, freed from the nagging fears of excessive understeer or oversteer you're left simply with the task of driving quickly.

With front and rear limited-slip differentials, linked by a viscous centre coupling, the STi feels a very different beast to the standard WRX. The steering is a smidge heavier and while it still lacks the super-detailed, granular feel of the Elise, the stiffer suspension brings with it a greater sense of connection. Drive to standard WRX limits and you'll find the STi shares a similar desire to understeer. Don't be fooled. Get the nose turned in, keep squeezing on the power and you'll feel the steering weight-up in your hands, like torque steer only without the wild deflection from your chosen course. The nose does begin to straighten slightly, requiring you to flex your forearms to stay on line, but stay committed and you can feel the power get redirected through the viscous coupling towards the rear, taking that initial power understeer with it. From this point on, the STi's balance is tail-led. You feel each individual tyre working to find grip, each corner of the car pummelling and digging at the tarmac, generating sensational levels of drive and traction. This is where the STi gets in the zone, the point at which it feels most alive.

The thing that never ceases to amaze is the sheer speed you can carry into any given corner, on any surface in any weather. Quite simply, nothing can live with its ability to absorb such dynamic punishment and adapt to the ever-changing demands of an unfamiliar road. Bumps, crests and tricky cambers? No problem. It's so fast on such a wide range of roads you can't help thinking it shouldn't be allowed.

There's huge overtaking power, too. You just can't beat a turbocharged car for that raw, ballistic rush, and from 3500rpm the STi flies. By 7000rpm the real fire has subsided (thank the Type-UK's extra catalyst for that) but by then whatever was in front of you will be a receding speck in your rear-view mirror. The STi's six-speed 'box helps maximise the thrust, with the intermediate ratios able to dispatch any corner you care to imagine with a full-boost flourish. It's not as manic as an Evo VII, and it's all the better for it. Each gear has an added urgency over and above the standard WRX; an increased ability to strain the tendons in your neck as boost pressure builds. Third and fourth are really impressive and it's these that do most of the work, even on surprisingly sinuous stretches. It still cruises well though; there's less than 3500rpm on the dial at 85mph, so motorways aren't a chore.

Big four-pot Brembo brakes at the front (two- potters at the rear) give the Impreza enormous stopping power. Initial pedal feel is a bit numb and they don't really bite when you gently cover the pedal, but once you're into the meat of the firm pedal's travel you can feel the pads chomp into the discs with conviction. Super Sport ABS takes readings from a lateral g sensor to increase the car's ability in trail-brake situations, and you have to be going mighty hard before the pedal will pulse beneath your foot. They feel well able to cope with anything you could throw at them.

It's easy to tell who's just stepped out of the STi; the ruddy-tinged face, glazed eyes and drugged smile are dead giveaways. Even Harry, a formerly reluctant Impreza admirer, appears to have been converted. 'Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. I even quite like the look of it! It's like the Integrale Evo � you really couldn't imagine having anything but the wide-arched, winged 'Grale. Well it's the same with the STi. It just looks so much more serious than the WRX.'

Roger, too, is convinced we're once again in the presence of greatness (and no, he's not talking about Harry): 'For the money you'd have to say it's a bit of a bargain. If an M3 can question your need to buy a 911, then this questions your need to buy an M3.' Quite.

Ah yes, the M3. A huge hit at last year's eCOTY contest (in conventional manual form), we brought along an SMG-equipped car to see if the rapid-shift sequential transmission raises the M3's game as a pure driving tool.

The paddles certainly make a huge difference to the way you drive the M3. At first you feel clumsy, flipping up and down for no particular reason and with no particular rhythm, but relax with the system and your timing returns. The biggest problem with it is the paddles themselves. They're just not long enough, especially when they lurk behind such a fat-rimmed steering wheel. Consequently when you curl your fingers out for a shift with the wheel pointing straight, chances are you'll flash the lights or squirt the screen washers. More frustratingly, when you reach for a paddle while applying steering lock (surely the whole reason for the paddle-shift system) it's all too easy to forget which side to flip. Mr Montoya might like his paddles attached to the back of his steering wheel, but he never needs to apply more than half a turn of lock. On the road, where full turns or more are often required, paddles fixed to the steering column would be a better solution.

In almost every other respect the SMG system is highly effective, heightening the excitement and involvement of a high-speed blat. I'm not noted for my love of these transmission systems, but even I would have a hard time choosing between manual and SMG. So too would Roger. 'It works so well you rarely feel like you're missing out by not having a manual 'box and it adds to the package without dominating the experience. Would I have one over the standard 'box? Dunno, but it's certainly the first one I'd consider having.' Harry is more decisive. 'I can't imagine having an M3 without it,' he says. Hayman just isn't convinced. 'The SMG gearbox works a treat if you like that sort of thing, he says, 'but I don't, and would have the manual every time. The paddle-shift just makes an already frantic and manic car even more aggressive.'
Transmission aside, there's a satisfying weight to the steering and other major controls, enough to make you feel involved at any rate. It needs more lock than you might expect to get it turned in, which makes it feel slower witted than it actually is. And if you switch off the ASR, as you surely will at some point, the rapidity with which the tail submits to 338bhp is an instant wake-up call that will require rapid armfuls of lock to catch. Once caught, the M-Diff and the M3's excellent weight distribution make it a straightforward beast to hold on to, but the transition from grip to slip is sharper and earlier than with the other cars here.

The biggest failing is the brakes, which lack staying power, even in hard road use. Charging along our valley road, the pedal became softer, the pads and discs eventually grinding and squealing in protest. From experience we know that track work kills them in three laps. Disappointing for a car so thoroughly engineered in every other area.

The over-riding impression of the M3 isn't its raw, balls-out ability but its super-consistent delivery. It might sound perverse, but it's this meticulous attention to the dynamic 'big picture' � the ability to carouse and cosset in equal measure � that is its undoing. Feedback is on a strictly need-to-know basis, and as the chassis is so darned competent and controllable (at least with ASR engaged) you don't need to know that much about the maelstrom occurring between tyres and tarmac. Too supple to feel noticeably more effective as you hit fast, smooth tarmac, too big and weighty to excel when the going gets bumpy-twisty, it simply tackles any road you care to throw at it in the same efficient, calculating manner. Consistently brilliant, it lacks the ability to deliver those fleeting moments of inspiration which the Mini, Elise and STi can serve up."


I'm not trying to prove AWD is better than RWD because frankly, I don't believe it to be! RWD allows a car to be lighter and suffer less drivetrain losses, which negate a lot of AWD's traction advantage as speed increases. In addition, a RWD car (all other things being equal) should be lighter and allow for a higher reving engine (as opposed to a turbo) which I prefer.

Still, my point is that you continually project your opinion as fact. You continually (and arrogantly) dismiss other opinions (and other cars for that matter) by portraying your personal views as the undisputable truth. I'm not the first to point this out, so perhaps you may want to slow your record number of posts a bit and THINK before you write sometimes.

*** ED: Attachment snipped... Some people have reported this as offensive, and I have to take that into account concidering the subject matter and the events surrounding that... however the reason I removed it is that I don't believe it's appropriate to add such a large and seemingly unrelated picture with no text.

tasteful picture.

... i'm not disagreeing with you, rev did certainly prove his point. though let's have some sense about things yet, eh?? sorry if i seem like a wad, but that's not very funny to me.

Take that picture out, young people have no common sense anymore.. :mad:

I cant wait to get my RX8 and park it next to my 94 RX-7. For those of you that think the EVO will outperform the RX8 on all marks I strongly disagree. The EVO and STI will out accelerate the RX-8, thats going to be it. The RX-8's suspension was based on the RX-7's, but improved.

Alot of you have seen the video of the RX-7 and RX-8 chasing each other. You can see in the straight aways the 7 kills the 8, but in the curves the RX-8 gains on the 7.

The RX-7 pulled a .97 and .98 skid pad back in 1993 and stopped from 60-0 in 110 feet. For the one that said a z06 pulls .97 is mistaken. I dont have the number handy, but its much greater than that.

The RX-7 was the best handling japanese car ever brought into america, 11 years after its introduction, its still in the top SCCA Super Stock catagory with only a handful of other cars (all late model vettes, 911 turbo's, AMG, Lotus, Viper BMW M's, etc). My point is the RX-8 is going to beat the 7 in most catagories (except acceleration).

Bank on it.

Thanks for the heads up. Saw the review and was really pleased that the 0 to 60 was less than 6 secs. The car slides beautifully balanced and with little body lean . . . oooohhhh booooyyy . . . think I'm gonna get it soon!!!

Hi, new to the board can anyone repost the link to the video I'd love to hear the sound of the RX-8 or could someone just put the review on Kazaa with the filename


Thanks

Welcome to the board. I'm rather new too and just discovered this thread. Does anybody still have the clip stored somewhere so that we can download from?

Originally posted by zerobanger
The RX-7 was the best handling japanese car ever brought into america, 11 years after its introduction, its still in the top SCCA Super Stock catagory with only a handful of other cars (all late model vettes, 911 turbo's, AMG, Lotus, Viper BMW M's, etc). My point is the RX-8 is going to beat the 7 in most catagories (except acceleration).

Bank on it.

Why SCCA ranked the RX-8 in B Stock instead of Super Stock, if the RX8 will beat the RX7 in most categories?

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac


Why SCCA ranked the RX-8 in B Stock instead of Super Stock, if the RX8 will beat the RX7 in most categories?

So you're countering a 5 months old statement? Classy.

its all propaganda, LOL.

I saw the 8 at a dealer earlier this week and I am dissapointed. While the front end is sexy, the rest of the car doesn't do it for me.

Its great that the rotary is back. The Rx8 makes a great daily driver, but it doesn't inspire me. Its not a -7-.

The main purpose for the Rx-8 is to pave the way for the 4th gen Rx-7, IMHO.

David

Originally posted by zerobanger
I cant wait to get my RX8 and park it next to my 94 RX-7. For those of you that think the EVO will outperform the RX8 on all marks I strongly disagree. The EVO and STI will out accelerate the RX-8, thats going to be it. The RX-8's suspension was based on the RX-7's, but improved.

Well, I've read several post from former 3rd generation RX7 owners on the RX7forum.com and evolutionmn.net who either now own or have driven the EVO and claim the EVO is the better handling car. The RX8 will not outhandle the RX7 or EVO in its current form because it is too softly sprung. Do you remember the Sports car International article? They gave the RX8 very poor marks in autocross and said aftermarket tuners would have to do a good amount of work to change that. I'm sorry, but you are going to have to give up some of the ultimate handling ability if you want a smooth comfortable ride.

Now, the RX8's suspension has tremendous potential and I imagine a Mazdaspeed version would be the one to compare to the 3rd generation RX7 and the EVO.

Originally posted by zerobanger

Alot of you have seen the video of the RX-7 and RX-8 chasing each other. You can see in the straight aways the 7 kills the 8, but in the curves the RX-8 gains on the 7.

What about the Best Motoring video? I am suspicious of the video you reference since it was created by Mazda and they are selling RX8s and not RX7s now.

[[QUOTE]Originally posted by zerobanger
The RX-7 pulled a .97 and .98 skid pad back in 1993 and stopped from 60-0 in 110 feet. For the one that said a z06 pulls .97 is mistaken. I dont have the number handy, but its much greater than that. [/QUOTE

The EVO pulled those skidpad marks in one test and got some of the highest slalom speed test results that most of the magazine have ever gotten. The EVO has tested below 110 ft. in the 60' - 0' braking test. However, the RX7 is the better track car and is certainly much faster at higher speeds. Of course, it only has two seats and is more than a handful to keep running for most people.

[[QUOTE]Originally posted by zerobanger
The RX-7 was the best handling japanese car ever brought into america, 11 years after its introduction, its still in the top SCCA Super Stock catagory with only a handful of other cars (all late model vettes, 911 turbo's, AMG, Lotus, Viper BMW M's, etc). My point is the RX-8 is going to beat the 7 in most catagories (except acceleration). [/QUOTE

The RX8 was never designed to be an RX7 killer. It is a hybrid sports sedan and sports car and its performance seems to fall into that zone. Some people here rationalize their purchase of the RX8 by saying it's acceleration is subpar (against other sports cars), but its handling is superior. I've seen lots of qualitative descriptions in reviews stating it has body roll and understeer. Its quantitative test results of handling also don't stand out, but the braking results have been very impressive. It is a superior handling car compared to sports sedans (and overweight sports cars like the Z and Mustang), but I would be shocked if it outhandled the S2000 or RX7. I think you need to be realistic as to what the RX8 is ( a fun, nimble sports sedan/ practical, so-so sports car) or you will be disappointed after spending $30+ K.

Originally posted by revhappy
The EVO pulled those skidpad marks in one test and got some of the highest slalom speed test results that most of the magazine have ever gotten. The EVO has tested below 110 ft. in the 60' - 0' braking test.Of course, the EVO comes with $300 gumball tires, while the RX-8 comes with run-of-the-mill Bridgerocks. Let's swap tires and see which one kicks ass.

well it doesn't seem to have a " quote " button , so ill just say a few things.

I know it was not meant to replace the Rx -7, yet you cant help but to compare since they market it as Mazda's rotary engined sportscar.

As far as the EVO, yes I know some test got a 60-0 in 106 feet, with average being slightly better than the FD. Keep in mind the #'s the FD got it did in 1992, which was unheard of. NO car had a .98 skid pad, few could do the 1/4 in 13.7, etc.

As far as the EVO, its a great handling car I'm sure. I doubt the EVO will be in the superstock catagory, where did they rank it btw?

For the money the EVO and STI are a great deal in todays dollar, but the 7 is just the rare car that can do it all <MINUS> engine longenitivity and silly stuff like that.

As far as the 7 only having 2 seats, thats because its a sportscar, not a ralley car. I prefer sporstcars, JMP.

I have to ask revhappy, where do you get your numbers from?

The Evo was tested on Car and Driver and generally, they get the best results for their numbers...

The Evo pulled a .90g on the 300 foot skidpad and a 157mph 70-0 braking. Lane change was 71.5 as well.

I am confused as to how C&D could be so far off the .97+g figure you have given.

Also, as interesting as it is (not) to argue paper statistics, the fact of the matter is that very few of us will be able to use both the RX-8 or the Evo to their limits, and people buy the cars they like. This is getting very much into the territory of Skyline's posts, that simply disagree with RX-8 owners based on the fact that <insert car here> is better on paper, but doesn't ever account for the fact that each driver has his and her own preferences.

In the end, I think the Evo and STi are applications for speed and handling with none of the creature comforts a lot of people want. And ya know what... some people prefer those creature comforts and liveable cabin. Now when you get the Evo, or whatever car... you will enjoy it because you chose it based on your needs and your requirements in a car. Also to point out further, these "I heard such and such from Evo forum about the RX-7..." type posts well... they simply irritate and bias information that really can't be verified which is why I'd recommend you simply not post those references.

This is in the end, an RX-8 forum. Now if you're here to join in the banter of what the RX-8 can do better then that's great, we are happy to have you. But if you want to come here and troll like Skyline has done so very well, and explain to people that the Evo is the better car (because you think so) then I suggest you stay at the Evo forums.

Cheers.

Originally posted by zerobanger
well it doesn't seem to have a " quote " button , so ill just say a few things.

I know it was not meant to replace the Rx -7, yet you cant help but to compare since they market it as Mazda's rotary engined sportscar.

As far as the EVO, yes I know some test got a 60-0 in 106 feet, with average being slightly better than the FD. Keep in mind the #'s the FD got it did in 1992, which was unheard of. NO car had a .98 skid pad, few could do the 1/4 in 13.7, etc.

As far as the EVO, its a great handling car I'm sure. I doubt the EVO will be in the superstock catagory, where did they rank it btw?

For the money the EVO and STI are a great deal in todays dollar, but the 7 is just the rare car that can do it all <MINUS> engine longenitivity and silly stuff like that.

As far as the 7 only having 2 seats, thats because its a sportscar, not a ralley car. I prefer sporstcars, JMP.

I believe the SCCA played around with it initially in SS and then moved it to AS. Oh, the RX7 will be a classic and it did it all. It was always my favorite Japanese sports car from the 1st generation on. Don't forget there are higher powered, more stripped down versions of the EVO overseas (i.e. Tommy Mackinon version) that could be more competitive on a track, but of course that's not their direct racing application.

If the RX7 were available today and its reliability issues weren't there, I'd likely take it over the EVO (if prices were close).

YOUCH!

blahahahahahaha
________
IPAD CASES (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

Originally posted by Hercules
I have to ask revhappy, where do you get your numbers from?

The Evo was tested on Car and Driver and generally, they get the best results for their numbers...

The Evo pulled a .90g on the 300 foot skidpad and a 157mph 70-0 braking. Lane change was 71.5 as well.

I am confused as to how C&D could be so far off the .97+g figure you have given.

Here is the Road and Track Result:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/roadtests/pdf/2003/2003_03_lancer_data.pdf

The breaking for the 60' to 0' test from motor trend:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/scenes/112_0306_spdtest/index1.html

The slalom tests were consistently in the high 60s to the low 70s.

I beleive there is a good deal of variability in skidpad figures based on the testing and environmental conditions. I'm not a "magazine racer", but was just trying to make the point in the above post that just because the RX7 recieved a .97 G skipdap result in a test doesn't by itself make it the ultimate handling machine (its success on race tracks supports that more IMHO and I think its one of the best handling cars ever).

QUOTE]Originally posted by Hercules
Also, as interesting as it is (not) to argue paper statistics, the fact of the matter is that very few of us will be able to use both the RX-8 or the Evo to their limits, and people buy the cars they like. This is getting very much into the territory of Skyline's posts, that simply disagree with RX-8 owners based on the fact that <insert car here> is better on paper, but doesn't ever account for the fact that each driver has his and her own preferences. [/QUOTE]

I wouldn't exactly say that. The EVO for example has very short gearing and you can enjoy the acceleration through the rev range through 3rd gear (redline is at 78 MPH) and probobly not get a ticket (on a highway of course). If you find a tight enough twisty you can easily exceed the limits of most cars quite easily (many S2K owners have "spun" their car out at least once on public roads).

That being said I truly respect other people's preferences, specifically regarding the mix of luxury/comfort and perfromance. Personally, as my name may suggest, I prefer lightweight high-reving, "low-torque" engines. For me, the EVO was a better execution of a design I also liked, than was the RX8 or the S2K. If the Renesis was in something like a 2nd Generation RX7, I proboblyu would have bought that. In fact, if the RSX Type R was here, I may have purchased it over the EVO despite the obvious performance gap. The reason I picked the EVO was not because of its on paper performance, but the driving dynamics experienced after two test-drives (steering feel, quick reflexes, gearing, etc.).

QUOTE]Originally posted by Hercules In the end, I think the Evo and STi are applications for speed and handling with none of the creature comforts a lot of people want. And ya know what... some people prefer those creature comforts and liveable cabin. Now when you get the Evo, or whatever car... you will enjoy it because you chose it based on your needs and your requirements in a car. Also to point out further, these "I heard such and such from Evo forum about the RX-7..." type posts well... they simply irritate and bias information that really can't be verified which is why I'd recommend you simply not post those references.

This is in the end, an RX-8 forum. Now if you're here to join in the banter of what the RX-8 can do better then that's great, we are happy to have you. But if you want to come here and troll like Skyline has done so very well, and explain to people that the Evo is the better car (because you think so) then I suggest you stay at the Evo forums.

Cheers. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh please! The rants about the EVO's cabin are nearly as bad as the "low-torque" nonsense about the RX8 and S2K. The seats are fantastic as is the steering wheel and the gearshift. The dashboard and controls are economy car -like, but so what? If that's a deal-breaker for an enthusiast, that's sad, but to each their own I guess.

Ok here are some of those posts:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25661&highlight=rx7

http://www.rx7club.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184810&perpage=25&highlight=evo%20rx7&pagenumber=1

I've been a member of this site for almost a year and a lurker for six months before that. So now, I am a troll??? Doesn't that go against you official defintition (first few post are antagonistic and meant to draw a negative reaction). My postion is that the RX8 was too watered down for mass consumption, and to a lesser extent was overhyped by mazda ("sports car like no other" "clean and efficient", etc.). I believe the RX8 is an excellent sporty sports sedan, but only a mediocre sports car. IMHO, to appropriately be a Mazda sports car, it needs to drop several hundred pounds and tighten up the suspension.

actually, the rx7 got a .97 and a .98.

As far as the torque thing, Torque is *NOT* over rated. I dont want to launch my car at 7500 rpm like a S2000 or RX8, on the other hand, too much torque is just as stilly IMO.

sure the evo is faster than the Rx8, but the Rx8 has better fit, finish and looks 100 X better than the EVO. You can see the quality built into the rx8, its not based on an economy car. Im not ripping on the EVO, STI or the NEON but at heart they ARE based on one. With that said, they offer great performance for the money, but I'd rather drive an RX-8 than one of those. JMP.

Originally posted by zerobanger
actually, the rx7 got a .97 and a .98.

As far as the torque thing, Torque is *NOT* over rated. I dont want to launch my car at 7500 rpm like a S2000 or RX8, on the other hand, too much torque is just as stilly IMO.

sure the evo is faster than the Rx8, but the Rx8 has better fit, finish and looks 100 X better than the EVO. You can see the quality built into the rx8, its not based on an economy car. Im not ripping on the EVO, STI or the NEON but at heart they ARE based on one. With that said, they offer great performance for the money, but I'd rather drive an RX-8 than one of those. JMP.

Oh, I never denied anyone that point. Believe me, the EVO/STI are great cars, but if you don't like the looks (or should I say hate them) then that's a very valid point. I like the RX8 and it was actually my third choice (EVO then the S2K). When I was initially shopping the RX8 and the EVO were reversed, but in the end the RX8 was disappointing for me. That being said, if I was cross-shopping a G35 or a 3 Series, I would take the RX8 in a heartbeat. My point is that some people are thinking the car has supercar performance except for acceleration and I think they will be greatly disappointed after spending $30K.

Originally posted by zerobanger
actually, the rx7 got a .97 and a .98.

As far as the torque thing, Torque is *NOT* over rated. I dont want to launch my car at 7500 rpm like a S2000 or RX8, on the other hand, too much torque is just as stilly IMO.

sure the evo is faster than the Rx8, but the Rx8 has better fit, finish and looks 100 X better than the EVO. You can see the quality built into the rx8, its not based on an economy car. Im not ripping on the EVO, STI or the NEON but at heart they ARE based on one. With that said, they offer great performance for the money, but I'd rather drive an RX-8 than one of those. JMP.

Well, a low-torque car is not a drag-racer, period. However, it gives you a lighter engine (assuming small displacement, high output powerplant) that is smaller and can be more ideally placed in the vehicle. Plus, they are fun and I imagine faciliates a slick gearbox. However, these types of cars have to be fairly bare bones to compete against their torquier counterparts. Automatic transmission and lots of luxury items don't fit, thus they are enthusiasts cars!

Originally posted by revhappy


Well, a low-torque car is not a drag-racer, period. However, it gives you a lighter engine (assuming small displacement, high output powerplant) that is smaller and can be more ideally placed in the vehicle. Plus, they are fun and I imagine faciliates a slick gearbox. However, these types of cars have to be fairly bare bones to compete against their torquier counterparts. Automatic transmission and lots of luxury items don't fit, thus they are enthusiasts cars!

found the quote button. Well, your point doesnt exactly work because the rotary is so damn small and with a turbo or s/c will make more/as much torque as a V8.

As C/D said they were able to take the rx8 to 0 -60 in 5.8 with a 7500 clutch drop but it was something like 2 seconds slower from the 5-60. I want to be able to hit the gas pedal and throw me back it the seat. Put a turbo on the rx8, it can rev and will have torque. Best of both worlds.

Originally posted by zerobanger


found the quote button. Well, your point doesnt exactly work because the rotary is so damn small and with a turbo or s/c will make more/as much torque as a V8.

As C/D said they were able to take the rx8 to 0 -60 in 5.8 with a 7500 clutch drop but it was something like 2 seconds slower from the 5-60. I want to be able to hit the gas pedal and throw me back it the seat. Put a turbo on the rx8, it can rev and will have torque. Best of both worlds.

That's what made the 3rd Generation such a beast!!! Unfortunately, that type of turbo system wasn't reliable. Still, a lightweight high reving NA is a nice thing too, IMHO. But, its not for you based on your post.