http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=104196?tid=edmunds.h..insideline.promo.2 g.*

Curb weight for the RX-8 is listed at 3810 lbs. I assume they had two NFL offensive linemen in the back seats. :)

One comment caught my attention. "Like the small-displacement British sports cars of old, the RX-8 moves along just fine, as long as you let the motor wind up and scream."

That says it all.

Not a bad review... though (1) their scoring system is questionable, (2) they optioned the RX8 to $31k and cited the $25k Mustang as a better bargain while the RX8 6MT can be had for $24k, and (3) there are some typos (their RX8 weighed 3810!).

That said, Ford deserves a lot of credit for the Mustang redesign. If I didn't need 4 doors, I would've considered one.

Awesome review..I've became a fan of the new mustang and wanted to know how it stood up against the rx-8...still debating which to get...if I could have it my way, I'd like the power of the mustang in the rx-8..hopefully they'll have a new turbo rx-8 soon.

The 8 can't win them all but not too sure about the "Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation" or the 7 second 0-60 second time. From their ratings, the Mustang blew out the 8 and the Z. It should be a lot closer than what it turned out to be.

The 8 can't win them all but not too sure about the "Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation" or the 7 second 0-60 second time. From their ratings, the Mustang blew out the 8 and the Z. It should be a lot closer than what it turned out to be.

it doesnt surprise me that they would pick the stang when for less money you can hav more car.... but 3800lb RX8? something is wrong with their facts.

its also hard to measure the stangs durability right now taking its "history" into account... be that as it may the stang is still nice... However, personally I'd rather have an 8

That was a pretty horrible review. They just put up random thoughts and called it a review, while saying they were going to put them on a track to really test them. A lot of words, but very little substance.

The video says the RX8 was 0-60mph in 7 seconds... what? I know I've hit it quicker than that!

They probalbly didn't wind the RX8 way up before launching, but regardless, the RX8 is starting to become more and more represented as a weakling, now even amongst credible reviewers. Edmonds even said it didn't have enough grunt for them to seriously consider it for the win. As far as handling goes, it probably handles the best which gives it comparable track times but straight line performance will always win out over handling. If the RX8 had 20-30 more hp it probably would have won. It doesn't need 300 like the stang, just about 260 for the base rx8. The Mazdaspeed needs to have over 300. This just goes to show you that Mazda needs to get the base 8 performing better. The Mustang GT is already cheaper and faster. Who's gonna pay much more for a Mazdaspeed 8 that can only keep up with the Mustang GT. The mazdspeed should have the cobra in it's sights.

NO RX-8 w/out a huge Turbo is going to smoke a Mustang in the straits. The Mustang achieves performance via the traditional American method of massive displacement, a method that is still superior to the Asian theory on performance. The RX-8 uses a very small rotary engine, coupled with a great transmission. Unfortunately, the Mazda approach to performance is far more expensive than Fords’, leaving very little room for a faster base model. If the Mazda drastically increased the 8’s power, it would come via FI, and we all know this would be attached to the MS8.

The problem I have with any comparison between the 8 and a Muscle car is the writer’s inability to see the difference between innovation and the same old thing. Muscle Cars achieve performance the same way they did 40 years ago, by placing a disproportionately large engine in a car. Because the formula is so simple it’s very cheap. The result is a car that snaps your neck off the line, but remains relatively unremarkable in the other aspects of driving. As such, the Mustang is not drastically different than it’s predecessors. It uses a large engine, to achieve performance. They changed the looks by going retro, but that’s about it! Let me preference this by saying that I understand that there are some innovations in the car, but nothing drastic.

If you dropped a six-cylinder engine in the new Mustang, I guarantee that no one would scream about the Mustangs performance. No one would call the Stangs handling crisp, or rave about its wonderful drivability. Lets face it, a vote for the Mustang, is a vote for displacement.

Not every car has to be innovative, but with all the praise and attention that the Mustang receives, you would think people would be more critical of Ford’s inability to do something different. Just once I would like to see Ford step to the plate with a fast 6 cyl offering. I would love to hear the critics woo over how great the six cylinder Mustang was. Not going to happen any time soon, because a big engine is cheap, and easy.

All that aside I’m not trying to put the Mustang down, I like it’s looks, love it’s performance, and acknowledge it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Heck, if I were into Muscle Cars, this would be the one I would own. My issue stems from comparisons made between two cars that could not be more dissimilar. If your going to set out and compare the RX-8 and the Mustang do so knowing that the cars have a huge difference in displacement. Write an article that respects the variety that makes a sports car, a sports car. Instead of rewarding the RX-8 for handling, and the Mustang for acceleration take the time to consider the other things. Compare the weakness instead of the strengths. Before I read the article I could have told you who was going to win, because American Magazine’s are horsepower crazy. All things being equal in the horsepower department, the RX-8 would be a faster car, it is that simple! If I were to drop a big old V8 in my 8, I would embarrass the Pony.

I agree. It is sort of comparing apples to oranges. Still, regardless I still think that the reviewers more and more are seeing the 8 as a little underpowered. Their thinking, if you're going to make a sports car, particularly one that looks as sporty as the RX8, you need to have really good performance with it. As far as American muscle is concerned, take a look at the hemis, vettes, stangs', GTOs', etc. We Americans love big engines and big power, particulary torque, something the RX8 doesn't have. We couldn't make something as innovativee as the RX8 engine cause all we think about is size. If we did make a rotary it'd be 4 liters, imagine that. This new mustang hopefully will wake Mazda up so they become competitive. Unfortunately, in the horsepower wars that are taking place the rotary engine is not the tech to fall behind. But I like to be different and like I said, the RX8 needs only 20 or so more hp. It doesn't have to be faster, just comparable.
On a side note. The new Mustang is neither innovative nor attractive unlike the RX8, which everyone I talk to regarding how much I payed for it responds "THAT'S ALL, I'D THINK THIS THING WOULD SELL FOR 40 THOUSAND."

All things being equal in the horsepower department, the RX-8 would be a faster car, it is that simple! If I were to drop a big old V8 in my 8, I would embarrass the Pony.

Actually that added weight would screw the handling all up. They are just 2 different cars, both can be appreciated. Getting the mustang to handle like the 8 and or getting the 8 to have the straight line power would cost much more $$$ or you could just by a c-6 vette. :)

I agree on the horsepower issue as well, but lets face it, you are going to have to go aftermarket to get an affordable solution at this point. If Mazda could cheaply, and reliably add horsepower they would have done it by now. Chances are that they had tested and decided that more horses from the Rensis was too risky from a financial standpoint. Over the next couple of model years you will see a gain of 10-15, but I would not imagine much more without a MS logo being attached. Unfortunately, adding MS tag means mucho bucks.

As for the American’s who love Horsepower/Torque, I’ve got some bad news. If you haven’t noticed, a majority of the classic American Muscle cars have gone the way of the Macarena. With the exception of the Mustang, I can’t think of one affordable Muscle car that has been around since the beginning. The Camero, Firebird, Grand National etc…, are all gone. Currently the only offerings are the Mustang and the GTO (The GTO being reintroduced).

Ironically enough the Mustang was never really a Muscle Car; it was initially marketed as a cheap, and economical “sporty looking car.” Several years after it’s introduction there were some models that started getting muscular, but if you were to query a muscle car fanatic they would be unlikely to consider the Pony Muscle. It wasn’t until recently that the Mustang achieved “Muscle Car” status, which had more to do with elimination of competitors, than with superiority.

In any case our car is what it is, and I don’t believe that many people interested in the 8 have considered the Mustang, and visa-versa. Therefore, every magazine in the world cold say the Mustang was better, and I don’t believe 1 single 8 owner would be lost. The two cars are just so different.

Actually that added weight would screw the handling all up. They are just 2 different cars, both can be appreciated. Getting the mustang to handle like the 8 and or getting the 8 to have the straight line power would cost much more $$$ or you could just by a c-6 vette. :)

I agree, but at that point handling would not be your objective. If you were to take that extreme a measure you would be going for speed.

The review including the sidebars strike me as examples of macho American car reviewers love-hate relationship with things. er... ah.. un-American.

They all praise the obvious engineering and handling of the 8, but get bogged down in their own cultural need for the biggest stick (V8 or V6 torque), carved from a brick styling (Mustang under bite, 350Z slab) and their apparent long unrequited desire for retro 60's musclecars of old (not sports coups as the title suggests).

If they could escape that mind trap they might even enjoy owning the 8 LOL.

But it's not going to happen, so the car gets relegated to 2nd place as an 'alien styled' foreign car with sporty, yet not quite manly performance, and ultimately, unloved, abilities.

What a pity for those reading that just don't have a clue and only read the headlines anyway..... :( Only Road Test Editor John DiPietro git it right through even his rose colored glasses..."a perfect blend of nostalgic style and modern convenience in an affordable package that should appeal to high school hoodlums and middle-aged soccer moms alike. " Look for hundreds of thousands of them at malls near you.

I had to laugh at my latest autoweek. They were discussing retro styling, the writer said he liked them, but only in limited edition. He wanted to know where Ford would go in a few years when the 2005 stang needed a face lift. How about in 10 years? Will they upgrade it to a foxbody style? lol.

I had to laugh at my latest autoweek. They were discussing retro styling, the writer said he liked them, but only in limited edition. He wanted to know where Ford would go in a few years when the 2005 stang needed a face lift. How about in 10 years? Will they upgrade it to a foxbody style? lol.

Here you are.

And 5 years later, retro styling at its most extreme.

The real next Mustang:

http://svc018.wic010p.server-web.com/maggil/images/gifs/horse_buggy.gif

As for this comparo, it was more abstract than technical, since the writer referred to each car as a rock song, or something like that. Are they giving the new Mustang too much credit? IMO, not really. The Mustang is a damn good bargain deal for what it's worth. I've had the opportunity to experience one a few months ago, and I found it to be quite impressive. I believe the only reason Edmunds gave the Mustang the edge is because it's new. The RX-8 went through little change from the 2004 to 2005 MY, mechanically. Would the RX-8 been in better position to take first place away from the Ford had its power been increased, or just been mechanically improved all together?

The real next Mustang:

http://svc018.wic010p.server-web.com/maggil/images/gifs/horse_buggy.gif

As for this comparo, it was more abstract than technical, since the writer referred to each car as a rock song, or something like that. Are they giving the new Mustang too much credit? IMO, not really. The Mustang is a damn good bargain deal for what it's worth. I've had the opportunity to experience one a few months ago, and I found it to be quite impressive. I believe the only reason Edmunds gave the Mustang the edge is because it's new. The RX-8 went through little change from the 2004 to 2005 MY, mechanically. Would the RX-8 been in better position to take first place away from the Ford had its power been increased, or just been mechanically improved all together?

LOL, I hate retro styling. I think the 05 stangs are fugly.

Well the review was very short and it sounded like FORD paid them off, not that I disagree with their choice...the new Mustang is the better bang for the buck in outright speed (HP per $$) but seeing all the cars together just made me GLAD I went with the RX8.

The new mustang looks better as you get use to it, but it still does not look as sexy as the RX8.

The 350Z I have respect for but the butt is so ugly, I still like Nissan. What is up with their 7sec 0-60 time...they suck driving the 8 it appears.

Well, finally (eventhough I really don't like this review...I expected more from edmunds.com) our 8 lost a battle. One thing that ticks me off a bit is that Mazda did not give the 8 more power. Like someone, and I have said before too, the 8 should have had about 265HP or more...but we shall see what is next for the 8.

THANKS FOR SHARING!!!

What is up with their 7sec 0-60 time...they suck driving the 8 it appears.


I agree.. I find that a little fishy... my 150hp, 4 banger Accord probably does 7 seconds

LOL, I hate retro styling. I think the 05 stangs are fugly.

Do you think Ford just ran out of ideas when it came to styling the next Mustang?

I believe there is nothing wrong with what they did. However, it doesn't look nearly as good as the original.

I agree - I saw an original today, just as the new '05 drove by. The new one appears very bland in comparison. The orange concept photo of the new stang really looked aggressive. I think the production model lacks that aggressive look.

From a pure acceleration test it is/was no surprise the Mustang took top honors. I have not driven one so I can't say how the handling/steering is. What I do know is it is a large car (187 inches, 188 for the GT) compared to the original at 181 inches. It is also quite wide at 73 inches. The original Mustang weighed 2500 lbs, the 2005 is almost 1000 lbs heavier. I cant imagine it feeling like a sports car with those dimensions and weight. Chevy reduced the size and weight of the 05 vette (dimensionally very close to the RX-8) at 174 inches, 3000 lbs.

For me the proportions are all wrong for the 05 stang, too much rear overhang and I am not fond of the headlights and tail lights. It appears all the magazines are in love the 2005 Stang, just as in 2004 they were with the RX-8. Next year it will be another car.

Wow, did you guys see the performance page? The mustang got 5.7 0-60 and the Z 5.9. I know those cars can both do it faster then that. Also they got almost 15.5 seconds on the 1/4 on the Rex. These guys must not know how to drive whatsoever. Hell, Polak could go lay down better times then these guys. Its just sad that this has to be a publication that people read and probably believe.

Wow, did you guys see the performance page? The mustang got 5.7 0-60 and the Z 5.9. I know those cars can both do it faster then that. Also they got almost 15.5 seconds on the 1/4 on the Rex. These guys must not know how to drive whatsoever. Hell, Polak could go lay down better times then these guys. Its just sad that this has to be a publication that people read and probably believe.

I don't think they are launching the cars, which in my opinion is a good thing. When you estimate the 0-60 times using launches, you create unrealistic expectations. A car can only be launched so many times before your replacing the transmission.

Wonder how much money Ford paid for that article? (Since they took 1st AND 2nd place)

Mustang: 40 year old "styling" + 40 year old "technology" = a car for the 80's

The Muskank has every redneck in the area drooling.

They can have 'em

Hey c'mon man.... some of us have Mustangs too.

:)

When it comes to flat out straight speed, for those that want that, the new Mustang is an easy choice. Performance through the curves is supposedly much improved also although I have not driven one myself.

320 hp and 330 tq has it's plus sides also. (mach1 not 05 stang)

The Mustang sure is a fun car for what it's worth. Take a ride in a 69' Mach 1, or drive a 2003+ Cobra. Trust me, the torque produced will knock your socks off, and you'll be doing 180s and burnouts for days. I consider it more to be a street machine than a driver's car, like our RX-8. :)

Wonder how much money Ford paid for that article? (Since they took 1st AND 2nd place)

Mustang: 40 year old "styling" + 40 year old "technology" = a car for the 80's

The Muskank has every redneck in the area drooling.

They can have 'em

I don't know why you think it is 40 year old technology, or better yet, what technology does the 8 have that is so groundbreaking, or even advanced.

I don't know why you think it is 40 year old technology, or better yet, what technology does the 8 have that is so groundbreaking, or even advanced.


I wouldn't say the technology is necessarily 40 years old, but using a V8 in mid level sports cars is becoming antiquated. Throwing a very large engine in a relatively light car sets you up for the lack of innovation attacks. Lets face it, getting 300 horsepower out of a V8 is not a big accomplishment these days. Infact there are older cars that get more out of a V8 than Ford does.

Getting 238 horses out of a 1.3-liter rotary engine is all that needs to be said. Mazda could have sold out and plopped a large displacement engine in the car like Ford did. The car would be faster, cheaper, but at the same time would have been nothing special.

I know what you're saying PKskull, it just pisses me off when people say such stupid things. There is nothing special about a v8 making 300 horsepower, and there are older cars that do it, but, there emissions arent as good. I guess, i look at the rotary engine and think its neat and enjoy it, but I don't get knocked over by the technology involved in it. Let's face it, the rotary engine has been around for 30+ years, its nothing new.


Valpac's comments about rednecks and 40 year old technology only proves his ignorance.

I wouldn't say the technology is necessarily 40 years old, but using a V8 in mid level sports cars is becoming antiquated. Throwing a very large engine in a relatively light car sets you up for the lack of innovation attacks. Lets face it, getting 300 horsepower out of a V8 is not a big accomplishment these days. Infact there are older cars that get more out of a V8 than Ford does. [

Yes but this is only a 4.6L we are talking about, not a big block of the old day. I get 20 mpg around town dogging it and 24-25 mpg highway. If the formula works why change it? It is proven and reliable (ok so it is Ford though LOL). and you know what....... I can take it stone cold out of my garage, turn it off, wash it, crank it up again to only pull it into the garage shut it down while still cold......lo and behold it will still start in the morning. :rolleyes: Can't say the same with a rotary engine. I don't mind the extra hastle of warming the rx-8 up, and having to check the oil every week but you have to remember a majority of other people will.

Here we go again... the horsepower per liter argument :rolleyes: . An I-4, V6, or rotary engine that makes use of expensive technology to get its horsepower is not any "better" than a big V-8 with the same output. I don't understand why people have this opinion. What's innovative about the new Mustang's V-8 is that it is the MOST AFFORDABLE 300 hp on the planet. If it were so easy to put 300 hp in a $25k car, everyone would be doing it. Keep your retarded comments to yourself.

PS: The new 4.6L has 3 valves per cylinder and variable cam timing, neither of which the previous Mustangs had. I know that's not enough to appease those of you who insist that a "good" engine must have rotors, DOHC, or FI :rolleyes: . What a joke...

Here we go again... the horsepower per liter argument :rolleyes: . An I-4, V6, or rotary engine that makes use of expensive technology to get its horsepower is not any "better" than a big V-8 with the same output. I don't understand why people have this opinion. What's innovative about the new Mustang's V-8 is that it is the MOST AFFORDABLE 300 hp on the planet. If it were so easy to put 300 hp in a $25k car, everyone would be doing it. Keep your retarded comments to yourself.

PS: The new 4.6L has 3 valves per cylinder and variable cam timing, neither of which the previous Mustangs had. I know that's not enough to appease those of you who insist that a "good" engine must have rotors, DOHC, or FI :rolleyes: . What a joke...

Damn straight!

Here we go again... the horsepower per liter argument :rolleyes: . An I-4, V6, or rotary engine that makes use of expensive technology to get its horsepower is not any "better" than a big V-8 with the same output. I don't understand why people have this opinion. What's innovative about the new Mustang's V-8 is that it is the MOST AFFORDABLE 300 hp on the planet. If it were so easy to put 300 hp in a $25k car, everyone would be doing it. Keep your retarded comments to yourself.

PS: The new 4.6L has 3 valves per cylinder and variable cam timing, neither of which the previous Mustangs had. I know that's not enough to appease those of you who insist that a "good" engine must have rotors, DOHC, or FI :rolleyes: . What a joke...


You can get 300 horsepower for less, just not in a sports car. The reason that no one else does it is due to the limited audience a Muscle Car appeals to. Take a look around, how many Muscle Cars are left? The Mustang, and the GTO. All the others are gone, because no one was buying them. However, I will admit that the Mustang continues to sell, but it is the exception and not the rule. If Ford continues to redesign the Mustang with a large displacement formula it will eventually catch up with them, the same way it caught up with the other companies.

All of the new gadgets on the Mustang engine are great; the problem is that Ford didn't invent any of them. Ford took someone else’s idea and reverse engineered it. For once I would like to see ford do something original with the Mustang. Before they even put the next Mustang on paper you can telegraph their design. Why can't they make a six fast? Why can’t Ford play around with something no one else has? They just keep coupling a huge engine to a light car.

People get down on the V-8 because large displacement engines carry terrible connotations. Generally they are associated with gas guzzling, and high insurance rates. While both may be appropriate, I understand that V-8’s are far more efficient than they used to be. Yes, I know the Rotary is bad on gas, just pointing out gas because you ask why people have issues with the 8-cylinder car.

Why is using FI a joke? Fi is a more efficient system than pure displacement. You get better gas mileage, and a lighter, smaller engine. All of these elements transfer directly to a better car.

I’m not the type who thinks the rotor is the best engine on the planet, I realize it’s shortcomings, and I have proudly owned several piston engines. At the same time I applaud Mazda for being the only manufacturer to run with the idea; having a variety of ways to accomplish the same task generally leads to efficiency and improvement, which is good for all of us. Mazda’s work is innovative because every time they make the rotary more efficient, it is the first time someone has accomplished the task.

And please avoid using statements like "retarded comments," makes you sound like a 5 year old. Although you don’t agree with my opinions, they aren’t wrong.

You can get 300 horsepower for less, just not in a sports car. Oh really? Please tell me where. The only other cars I know of that offer 300+ hp are high end or luxury sedans... certainly nothing you can buy for $25k.

All of the new gadgets on the Mustang engine are great; the problem is that Ford didn't invent any of them. Ford took someone else’s idea and reverse engineered it. For once I would like to see ford do something original with the Mustang. Before they even put the next Mustang on paper you can telegraph their design. Why can't they make a six fast? Why can’t Ford play around with something no one else has? They just keep coupling a huge engine to a light car. Ford is a relatively conservative company. This applies to the styling of their cars, as well as implementing new technology. This doesn't make them a subpar car company. For the most part, they wait to see if a new technology catches on and offers significant benefits before using it, rather than pioneering a brand new technology which carries significant risk. Generally, this has worked for them over the years. If you choose to dislike the company because they aren't on the cutting edge of engine technology, that's fine. I think you're in the minority on that one. I think most people would take a 300hp/320lb-ft V-8 over a much more expensive V-6 with all the bells and whistles.

Why is using FI a joke? Fi is a more efficient system than pure displacement. You get better gas mileage, and a lighter, smaller engine. All of these elements transfer directly to a better car. Sorry for the confusion. I'm not saying FI is a joke. I'm speaking generally about people with the mindset that engines without the latest technologies are junk. You know the type, the "VTEC pwnz!" crowd who assume that anyone who drives a SOHC V-8 is a redneck. That mindset is a joke to me.

And please avoid using statements like "retarded comments," makes you sound like a 5 year old. Although you don’t agree with my opinions, they aren’t wrong.I should have been more specific. Retarded comment:
Mustang: 40 year old "styling" + 40 year old "technology" = a car for the 80's. The Muskank has every redneck in the area drooling. "
I don't think my choice of words was inappropriate.

Oh really? Please tell me where. The only other cars I know of that offer 300+ hp are high end or luxury sedans... certainly nothing you can buy for $25k.

Give me some time on the engine, I am at work and don't have the time to look for one right now.

... it just pisses me off when people say such stupid things.

Lighten up.

I live in an area of Atlanta where the Mustang is king. Thus my comment.

Do you want me to be politically correct? It's not going to happen.

I wouldn't say the technology is necessarily 40 years old, but using a V8 in mid level sports cars is becoming antiquated.

What? With all respect, are you nuts? A V8 is sweeeeeettttt!!!

Throwing a very large engine in a relatively light car sets you up for the lack of innovation attacks.

LOL, OK…like anyone cares you were innovating while getting your butt handed to you in a race.

Getting 238 horses out of a 1.3-liter rotary engine is all that needs to be said. Mazda could have sold out and plopped a large displacement engine in the car like Ford did. The car would be faster, cheaper, but at the same time would have been nothing special.


I just don’t agree…I love cars for everything that they are, one engine might be better than another but the HP per liter thing just does not impress me too much. I can understand the great work it takes to get a lot of power out of a small engine, but at the same time I love what a V8 can do with all it’s lack of innovation and dated tech, it is still a great engine.


If Ford continues to redesign the Mustang with a large displacement formula it will eventually catch up with them, the same way it caught up with the other companies.


That’s just crazy talk…the V8 is the “muscle” in “MUSCLE CAR” As long as they can build them relatively affordable...alot of power for a good price will never be a bad formula.

Finally…

I think the RX8 is hell of a sports car, hence that is why I got one. I love everything about it and I picked it over a 2005 Mustang GT mainly based on looks, handling, and the rear seats. I am learning more and more about the rotary and I wish more companies spent money on them but it seems that you are hateing on the V8 or Mustang.

The mustang is not the best looking, but it’s front half does look VERY taugh and I’ll bet they will make it look better and better with time. I agree the rear overhang, rear lights, front lights, and rear headroom and seat comfort stinks but it does exactly what it was built to do…and it does it VERY WELL.

Update, according to the last few lateral test…the GT is right on the heels of the RX8…I know it wont beat it in the corners but it does it better than any other Mustang ever, or at least almost all of them.

You want to know my vote for the best engine in the world? The good old Chevy V8!!! Hands down!

Why, because it makes 400HP and get’s 18/28 mpg…and according to other cars I’ve seen…NOTHING comes close to achieving that. The Mustang’s V8 get’s a good 300HP and 18/25 but the Chevy gives you another 100HP and 3 more mpg in the highway.

Don’t nock the V8 or big engines based on old tech or lack of innovation type excuses. Any engine making 400HP and getting that fuel economy deserves an award. Meanwhile they ignore it and ignore it, that Chevy V8 is the best engine in the world in my opinion.

HANDS DOWN!

I love the rotary don’t forget, and don’t take this too harsh…I’m just saying that’s all. We are just having a good discussion… :D

In the end I think the mpg issue will hurt the RX8 more than the power issue. I mean there are 400 hp v8s getting much better gas mileage and making much more power. The efficiency of the rotary engine is only its size per amount of horsepower. 238 hp is not an impressive amount of power. 238 hp out of a 1.3 liter engine is. The problm people have is the perception that the smaller the engine the better the fuel economy. It seems to be going the opposite way these days. It used to be that the v8s of yore receive terrible gas mileage, but these days with blown 4 cylinder engines and new tech for the v8s, things are evening out. It's more about how you want your power. Some like big displacement, some FI, soon with hybrid tech we'll see electric motors acting as turbos powering the 2 remaining wheels. Perhaps Mazda should look into that technology aka Honda. If it could be packaged neatly and not too heavy that would be cool.

In the end I think the mpg issue will hurt the RX8 more than the power issue...I"d agree. The RX-8 rotary's advantages in terms of weight, size, (resulting) placement, and relative power are balanced, unfortunately, by the engine's thirst for fuel. Oil will never be cheaper (except for short-term fluctuations) than it is today. A sports car that delivers gas mileage equivalent to a mid-sized SUV (with a much smaller tank) is, at best, a niche vehicle with limited long-term prospects.

As far as the Mustang is concerned, I'd be surprised if the GT with a V8 makes up more than 1/4 of all the model's sales. The GT is a "halo" vehicle. Even with the relatively good mileage the V8 produces, the bulk of Mustang sales will be the more fuel efficient V6.

Sorry, kids. There's a reason that Muscle Cars have largely disappeared. The Mustang GT generates ink for Ford and the existence of the V6 version enables Ford to sell lots of copies. In the long run, however, Ford's (and Mazda's) bread and butter are more fuel efficient cars.

Talan7, all true. I love sports cars and I like that they put their power down differently and get their HP differently too.

Poor Mazda has no one else to help push them to find the "holy grail" of the Rotary. The V8 or Piston engines in general have ALOT more money and time spent in research then the rotary might ever have. Unless Mazda or someone else can find a breakthrough in the Rotary, I think it might forever be a special but rarely used engine.

As long as the V8's make more HP and keep getting better with fuel economy, why change the formula? A rotary takes alot of work for both of thoes (HP/Fuel economy) and after so many years, decades, etc...the V8 is hitting it's stride.

I wonder what would happen if they would take out 2 pistons from the Chevy V8 to make a V6? Maybe 325HP and 21/31....LOL

"d agree. The RX-8 rotary's advantages in terms of weight, size, (resulting) placement, and relative power are balanced, unfortunately, by the engine's thirst for fuel. Oil will never be cheaper (except for short-term fluctuations) than it is today. A sports car that delivers gas mileage equivalent to a mid-sized SUV (with a much smaller tank) is, at best, a niche vehicle with limited long-term prospects.

As far as the Mustang is concerned, I'd be surprised if the GT with a V8 makes up more than 1/4 of all the model's sales. The GT is a "halo" vehicle. Even with the relatively good mileage the V8 produces, the bulk of Mustang sales will be the more fuel efficient V6.

Sorry, kids. There's a reason that Muscle Cars have largely disappeared. The Mustang GT generates ink for Ford and the existence of the V6 version enables Ford to sell lots of copies. In the long run, however, Ford's (and Mazda's) bread and butter are more fuel efficient cars.

Yup, also true. Again I say it...someone (the other auto companies) needs to talk to Chevy, Toyota, and Honda to learn what the heck they are doing to get another 2-4mpg out of their V6's or V8's.

If I ever was to keep my 8 forever, and with each drive it seems more and more likely, and the little rotary died on me after about 200,000 miles...LOL, I would stick the Vette's 6L V8 in it...now that is a MEAN MACHINE!!!

Sheesh... what's with all the hate? The RX8 used to be on Ford's website (and is still linked to from it).

Each approach has its pros and cons. A larger, heavier piston engine can be tweaked for decent fuel economy and lots of power (especially low-end), but you can not build a lightweight, balanced, inexpensive 4-door using a V8. You can build a well-priced, heavy car with lots of torque/power that still handles decently.

I think people are getting angry because for once the RX-8 didn't win a comparison test. Get over it dudes. A car is a car, and if you're in it for the bragging rights, then get out.

I think people are getting angry because for once the RX-8 didn't win a comparison test. Get over it dudes. A car is a car, and if you're in it for the bragging rights, then get out.

DISCLAIMER: THE MUSTANG IS FASTER THAN THE RX-8, I ACCEPT AND RESPECT THIS FACT!

The discussion in this thread got heated when I questioned the logic of comparing an RX-8 to a Mustang. I think most of us can live with the fact that Edmonds liked the Mustang more than the 8. I just don't see why you would compare the two cars? An article comparing the Z, S2000, and the 8 makes sense. All similar sized engines targeted at the same market. Be my guest and compare the EVO, and the STI, or the new Mustang to the GTO. These showdowns are much more appropriate than the subject of the Edmonds article.

Without reading the article I could have told you that the RX-8 would lose to the Mustang, the formula is quite simple. Give a bunch of American Sports Car writers the keys to a very powerful car, and they will write a story about how fast it goes. Then throw them into a car with significantly less power, and they will write a story about how slow it is. That’s exactly what happened here. Apples to Oranges!

The RX-8 is a Sports Coupe and the Mustang is a Muscle Car. If you are a professional and are going to compare two dissimilar things, then accommodations must be made to level out the strengths and weaknesses. They should evaluate the RX-8 and the Mustang as if both cars lost their greatest attributes. The RX-8 should accelerate like the Mustang, and the Mustang should handle like the RX-8. This process never occurs. If you read the article the overwhelming theme is torque and horsepower. The Mustang won because it has more juice, that fact can’t be argued. If this is the case why even bother writing the article, the decision was made on the stat sheets? The comparison is no more plausible than a Mini v Hummer off road challenge.

If you think I’m off base step back and look at if from a marketing and developmental perspective, ignoring the obvious flaw that Mazda is owned by Ford. When Mazda was designing and eventually producing the RX-8 do you think they were concerned with Mustangs? Visa Versa, do you think Ford designers were considering the RX-8 when working on the Mustang? No. Mazda was aiming at the S2000 and the Z. Ford was aiming at the Firebird, Camero, and the GTO. Taking this into consideration, both cars are successful in their own right. Both cars should be appreciated for what they are, and most importantly how well the meet the needs of their targeted audience.

To me the article reeks of “Let’s throw the new Mustang a bone.” If they were really in the mood for Apples to Oranges why didn’t they role with EVO, STI v Mustang? The Mustang would have been handed it’s lunch, and as such they couldn’t Brown nose the Mustang. It just seems odd that they chose the RX-8 and the 350z, like they were not going to pick a fight with something they couldn't beat.

I don't really care what Edmund's says. They have a different perspective on cars than I think most 8 owners would agree with. For example, I know people who swear BMW's are the "Ultimate Driving Machine". I just don't like them all that much, at least at thier price. They just don't drive how I like my car to drive. Edmunds seeks to please a different audience than those of us who love our 8's. They just want different things out of a car.

Yeah, it's 1:00 A.M. That was pretty incoherent, so I'll post it. LOL, enjoy.

...comparing the mustang to the 8 isn't the best comparison one could think of - but if they can compare a lamborghini murc. to an Evo 8 on topgear (that british car review team) I'm sure they could compare the new mustang against the 8 in a review that included a road course where the handling plays a major role - where Im SURE the 8 would blow away the mustang all day.

If an 8 can finish as fast as an m3 and the 350z around a test course... somehow I dont see the mustang finishing as fast.

A straightaway? Obviously a different story.

But at the end of the day, the fit and finish, the looks, the feel and handling, the options, the saftey, gas mileage, AND the reliability are all factors (some being much more important than others without question) that would contribute to the fact that in my personal opinion, and the opinion of anyone who has real taste in design - and the driving experience, would all say that the 8 would win a shootout between the new mustang. Give these two cars to a different magazine, and I'm sure you'd have a much different review.

It's like going to a yankees game with a red sox hat and jersey on and being suprised about being unfairly treated or steriotyped.

To me the article reeks of “Let’s throw the new Mustang a bone.” If they were really in the mood for Apples to Oranges why didn’t they role with EVO, STI v Mustang? The Mustang would have been handed it’s lunch, and as such they couldn’t Brown nose the Mustang. It just seems odd that they chose the RX-8 and the 350z, like they were not going to pick a fight with something they couldn't beat.

I understand what you mean but here is where the RX8 & Mustang are similar:

Sports cars
4 seater
RWD

I think the RX8 is kinda in it's own catagory since it has those extra doors, but I do understand your point that they built the RX8 with the S2000 & 350Z in mind while they built the Mustang with the F-Car & GTO in mind.

I also agree that maybe they should have brought in the big dogs and had the EVO & WRX Sti in the fight, since both are faster than the Mustang. Heck...why did they not bring in the new GTO with 400HP which has better quality and better rear seats? I would have gotten a GTO if it was not so dang heavy and slow in the corners, cause I have never owned a V8 but always wanted to.

Meanwhile edmunds did not take anything away from our 8. It looks better, seats 4 better, handles better, has better (light weight) reflexes, has better value, and finally has better quality than the Stang. I drove the new Mustang GT and the fit and finish outside is great but the inside (at least the doors) was very cheap looking.

Still, it looks taugh and is a very good bang for the buck (or HP per $$) car. With time and some mods I'll bet the Mustang will hit high 12's and with more work low 12's, which for the initial cost of $25,000 that is pretty dang good.

Our 8 is a little behind in the numbers game but give it more time and people will be running mid to low 13's and maybe some high to mid 12's (while still being a good daily driver). Mr. Hill (lol) according to his g-tech (which MT tested and found to be very accurate) is running 13.7's (a huge improvement over the 14.5 it get's stock). With NOS he get's even better...so, give the 8 some time.

Last thing, we all have to give some love to the EVO & WRX Sti for the performance they produce as $30,000 cars. Yes, they aint too pretty...but they sure are fast. Also, "REMEMBER" the Supra...with 320HP that sucker use to do the 1/4 in 13.5 which is still very fast today. Maybe they will follow (I've heard some stuff on a new Supra) the RX8 formula and make it a comfortable 4 seater that can still kick some butt.

Then there is the MS RX8....wow, I wonder what that will be like...

That 0-60 is BULL................ I can hit it way faster than that. We can all see that their drivers suck!

There's nothing wrong with comparing any $2xk RWD performance cars. Edmunds mention the strengths and weaknesses of each car and clearly stated that much of their rating was subjective.
It's like going to a yankees game with a red sox hat and jersey on and being suprised about being unfairly treated or steriotyped.
I wore my Red Sox hat at Yankee stadium last season and while there was some good natured booing and ribbing, the Yankees fans were mostly cordial.

They might be a *tad* more bitter this year :)

...comparing the mustang to the 8 isn't the best comparison one could think of - but if they can compare a lamborghini murc. to an Evo 8 on topgear.


The Evo 8 MR they bring to the party has 450 horsepower, and is marketed as a Super Car. The comparision in that show was mearly a demonstration that an EVO 8 MR could handle with the Lambo. Top Gear never makes that claim that one car is better than another.