damn this car is fast! It feels more powerful than the evo8! I drove both today back to back. And I must say I loved the feel of the rx-8. adapting to the car will be necessary because it had to much power that I kept burning out. the rpms jump and it looks so NICE!

hahaha... that's just what i said ("freakin' fast") when i first saw one in action in the C&D video :)

Thats what I said when I was doing about 20MPH in second and floored it :D

Salesguy was looking a bit pale now that I think of it....

This car IS sinckity snickity FAST. As I get more used to the car, get more miles, and be in the right gear, this baby starts to open up... big time :D It REALLY FLIES! I'm starting to somehow feel the power more now... esp. say doing 3r gear at 50ish on an on-ramp then zoom-zoom, back pushes into the seat and get then ready for takeoff. Nice rush!

Originally posted by Efini 8
damn this car is fast! It feels more powerful than the evo8! I drove both today back to back. And I must say I loved the feel of the rx-8. adapting to the car will be necessary because it had to much power that I kept burning out. the rpms jump and it looks so NICE!

Now, now... let's not exaggerate. The RX-8 is quick, but not blinding fast. It's not in the same league as the Evo, acceleration-wise. Sure they have different acceleration behaviors, but I don't think there's any comparison between the two.

Disclaimer: I've never driven an Evo, but I've driven a modded FD (300rwhp). I imagine those are comparable in acceleration times (i.e. 0-60, 1/4)

Yeah, the RX-8 is a blast to drive! I finally got to test drive one today and I just had that ear to ear grin on my face. My mother put in an order for a Winning Blue AT due sometime in 8-12 weeks. That works out perfectly because we have some other things to take care of, so no rush. :)

I HAVE driven the EVO, and it is very fast, esp. as the boost just pins itself when you floor the accelerator. Then the car does one of these staged acceleration 1-2-3-4-5-gone takeoffs that feels like some BIG hand has just started pushing you hard-HARD-HARDER from behind ! You really go.. the RX-8 hasn't that initial startoff feeling, but once it get wound up say 5000 rpm, it does a fair approximation of the EVO acceleration. TRY THEM BOTH.. EVOs are easy to get ahold of, just visit a Mitsu dealer....

A 300rwhp FD would absolutely rape a (stock) Evo, and it wouldn't be pretty. ;)

The evo probably puts out somewhere in the neighborhood of ~230 whp. I'd expect an RX-8 to get about 215rwhp. Of course, the Evo will have a wider powerband due to the turbo, but during the intervals at which the RX-8 is in the upper rev range, I'd expect that the acceleration feel is about the same. (since the weight:whp ratio is about the same at that point)

hi guys, been lurkin' on this site for a while, but never posted because, sadly, the rx-8 is waayyyy out of my price range. plus i'll have to wait a couple years before i can purchase a car of any kind (3rd-gen rx-7, maybe?)

anyway, i felt the urge to post a reply in defense of the evo. one of my best friends owns one, and i can tell you guys that it's difficult to imagine it being raped by a 300hp FD. i think it'd be pretty close, actually.

it's just that for an evo, your 30K is buying you pure performance and zero luxury (interior looks really cheap). depends on where your priorities lay. pricewise the rx-8 and evo are neck and neck, but there's no question which one i'd rather walk out the door with :D

An FD is what , 500-600llbs lighter than an EVO and only RWD, not 4WD (less drivetrain power loss, by 8% or so = 25bhp +).

Those together, in the dry will make the FD a lot quicker than the EVO.

Wet/poor roads it may be a different story.

Originally posted by m477
A 300rwhp FD would absolutely rape a (stock) Evo, and it wouldn't be pretty. ;)

The evo probably puts out somewhere in the neighborhood of ~230 whp. I'd expect an RX-8 to get about 215rwhp. Of course, the Evo will have a wider powerband due to the turbo, but during the intervals at which the RX-8 is in the upper rev range, I'd expect that the acceleration feel is about the same. (since the weight:whp ratio is about the same at that point)

I think you assume too much. So far the only think we know for a fact, is that power output of the RX8 is about 180 rwhp (if you take a look a dyno thread). I have also seen dyno results from an EVO at 255whp (of course maybe in my country EVO is been importet with different specifications than the US. Official output is 280HP). So there is much difference between them.

You guys are on crack if you think an EVO would have a snowballs chance against a 300 rwhp FD ... nuff said.

Originally posted by Genom
Thats what I said when I was doing about 20MPH in second and floored it :D

Salesguy was looking a bit pale now that I think of it....

:D When I took mine for a spin right as I was buying it, my sales guy had never ridden in one. He seemed thrilled to get a ride in the new car despite the fact it was 10:30 at night and they had been closed for over an hour :-) ...

Didn't get on the engine too much during the test drive, but enough to feel how fast the engine can take off ... It was certainly an experience ...

Props to Justin.... yer da man!

Originally posted by kostas*


I think you assume too much. So far the only think we know for a fact, is that power output of the RX8 is about 180 rwhp (if you take a look a dyno thread).
The dyno was for the LOW POWER engine.

Also, this confirms that the RX-8 has approximately a 15% drivetrain loss, which means my original estimate of 215 rwhp is pretty much dead on.

I have also seen dyno results from an EVO at 255whp (of course maybe in my country EVO is been importet with different specifications than the US. Official output is 280HP). So there is much difference between them.
It is a well known fact that pretty much all the "280hp" Japanese cars put out well over 280hp, so this is irrelevant...

Originally posted by m477

The dyno was for the LOW POWER engine.

Also, this confirms that the RX-8 has approximately a 15% drivetrain loss, which means my original estimate of 215 rwhp is pretty much dead on.



The dynos were done on the High power engine. And I think all 3 dynos that showed ~180 were done on the high power engine.

Originally posted by BOOSTD 7
You guys are on crack if you think an EVO would have a snowballs chance against a 300 rwhp FD ... nuff said.

I totally agree. How can ANYONE think an Evo putting down at the MOST 250 at the wheels is going to best a lighter much more powerful RWD FD?

Oh.. my bad... I didn't see the part that said the FD had a flat and was missing a plug...

Wow, I created quite a ruckus with the comparison to a 300rwhp FD. Now that I look back to it, I was mistaken. I was just thinking in terms of off-the-line acceleration times (not taking into account of the AWD). Would a comparison to a stock FD be more precise?

Stock for Stock, the EVO should win from a stop. From a highway roll, the RX7 should win easily. On most tracks, I'd go with the RX7. On back, twisty roads (especially ones not in perfect condition), I'd go with the EVO. It can be a bit more interesting with some of the more extreme EVO and RX7 versions over seas (RS Sprint and 280 HP RX7), but I still think the RX7 is the much better track car.

Both cars can be modded to be pretty sick, so its silly to compare stock versions of one to modded of the other.


Still, the EVO is quite competitive in stock form for a car that seats four, gets better gas mileage & emissions, can be driven in all seasons, is not a total maintenance nightmare and about $20K cheaper (adjusting the RX7s 1995 price into todays dollars).

Originally posted by revhappy

Still, the EVO is quite competitive in stock form for a car that seats four, gets better gas mileage & emissions, can be driven in all seasons, is not a total maintenance nightmare and about $20K cheaper (adjusting the RX7s 1995 price into todays dollars).


But which one do the ladies like? ;)

Originally posted by Boozehound



But which one do the ladies like? ;)

The ladies dig the RX8 here ... WOW! Talk about some eye catchers and talk about some hotties .... WOOHOO :D

Originally posted by Boozehound



But which one do the ladies like? ;)

...depends on what kind of ladies you're talking about... the kind of ladies i like would probably rather go for the RX-7... but i seem to do ok with just the Echo :D :cool:

Originally posted by Boozehound



But which one do the ladies like? ;)

Hehe.....but it for $20K (estimated price difference), is too steep a price to get some......:) Of course, the fact that it has a backseat also can come in handy. :D

It's <i>nasty</i> fast!

Originally posted by revhappy


Hehe.....but it for $20K (estimated price difference), is too steep a price to get some......:) Of course, the fact that it has a backseat also can come in handy. :D News flash!

Ladies like the back seat of a car only when:
a) It's a friggin' limo!
b) It's a $100k+ car!
c) It's the only thing to lay on other than dirt within a 100 mile radius!
d) You're a movie star, a rock star or a multi-millionaire!
e) The ass end of your car looks better than hers!

"Fast" Is relative to what you are accustomed to driving....

I don't know the stock RX-7's acceleration numbers but I went to the track and this brand new EVO (don't know the mileage) came up and burned the quarter mile @ 13.60s first pass and 13.49s second and best pass.

I saw a local FD here run a 13.5 with no mods other than a downpipe. A ~300rwhp FD would be well into the 12s.

Don't get me wrong, the evo8 is a great car, but if I were to get one I dont think I would forgive myself for spending $35000+ on a car that simply looks ugly and the interior looks like ass. It does look like a regular lancer, but handles like a beast! Mad crazy acceleration and with the turbo you are bound to have fun. The lancer evo8 is a performance enthusiasts' car, and sales typically show that people that are into auto performance are getting the lancer because it is a proven winner in rally. However I believe the rx-8 is the best bang for my buck at the current time.

If you look at the power to weight ratios of the two it's pretty close:

EVO8 = 3260/271 = 12.0 #/hp
RX8 = 3029/247 = 12.2 #/hp

But....the EVO8 has a broader power band....but the RX8 is able to hold the gears longer. It's close but only from a roll. From a stop the EVO has the choice of destroying the RX8 (along with clutch or tranny) or keep it close.

As far as a EVO8 being close to the acceleration of a 300 hp FD...no way. The FD is close, if not faster, stock.

Originally posted by Efini 8
Don't get me wrong, the evo8 is a great car, but if I were to get one I dont think I would forgive myself for spending $35000+ on a car that simply looks ugly and the interior looks like ass. It does look like a regular lancer, but handles like a beast! Mad crazy acceleration and with the turbo you are bound to have fun. The lancer evo8 is a performance enthusiasts' car, and sales typically show that people that are into auto performance are getting the lancer because it is a proven winner in rally. However I believe the rx-8 is the best bang for my buck at the current time.

$35K +???? I got mine for about $31K including tax and tags.

You need to compare torque numbers though. That and the AWD is where the huge difference is.

Originally posted by Lethalchem
You need to compare torque numbers though. That and the AWD is where the huge difference is.

You don't need to compare torque numbers because then the RX8 would look really slow. Acceleration always comes down to horsepower and weight. Another way of comparing acceleration is look at 1/4 mile trap speeds. The EVO traps ~100 mph. The RX8 traps around 96 mph.

Ohhh this might also help. I raced a S2000 from a rolling start and it was dead even. It was a hot day (FI cars are hurt more on hot humid days than NA cars) and I don't know if the S2000 had any mods.

S2000= 2800/240 = 11.6 #/hp
EVO8 = 3260/271 = 12.0 #/hp

So basically my broader power band kept up with the peaky powerband of the S2000. In the end we can only get a ballpark figure because truely analizing these cars would be too complicated requiring a dyno graph of each on the same dyno, gear ratio analysis,...blah blah blah...just to find out in the end the EVO8 is faster from a roll. It's close but it's still faster.

Ohhh and I didn't pay $35,000....I walked out with the car a tick under $30,000.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


You don't need to compare torque numbers because then the RX8 would look really slow. Acceleration always comes down to horsepower and weight. Another way of comparing acceleration is look at 1/4 mile trap speeds. The EVO traps ~100 mph. The RX8 traps around 96 mph.

Ohhh this might also help. I raced a S2000 from a rolling start and it was dead even. It was a hot day (FI cars are hurt more on hot humid days than NA cars) and I don't know if the S2000 had any mods.

S2000= 2800/240 = 11.6 #/hp
EVO8 = 3260/271 = 12.0 #/hp

So basically my broader power band kept up with the peaky powerband of the S2000. In the end we can only get a ballpark figure because truely analizing these cars would be too complicated requiring a dyno graph of each on the same dyno, gear ratio analysis,...blah blah blah...just to find out in the end the EVO8 is faster from a roll. It's close but it's still faster.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. The torque is what gets a car moving. If you have a high HP car, but makes lousy torque, you're going to have a hard time getting going. Think of the cars that run at the salt flats. They want high top speed, not acceleration.

At the track, Torque get's you ET's, Horsepower gets you MPH. It's the torque that gives you the "seat of the pants" feel on the street, thereby making the car more or less enjoyable. You are correct about a broad powerband being desirable, but it's a flat torque curve that you want, not HP.

Originally posted by Lethalchem


I'm going to have to disagree with you. The torque is what gets a car moving. If you have a high HP car, but makes lousy torque, you're going to have a hard time getting going. Think of the cars that run at the salt flats. They want high top speed, not acceleration.

At the track, Torque get's you ET's, Horsepower gets you MPH. It's the torque that gives you the "seat of the pants" feel on the street, thereby making the car more or less enjoyable. You are correct about a broad powerband being desirable, but it's a flat torque curve that you want, not HP.

You're right that torque gives you that seat of the pants feeling but how do you explain why and S2000 and a 350z run the same 1/4 mile time when their respective torque values are over 100 ft-lbs different?

S2000:
weight= 2800
hp = 240
tq = 153 ft-lbs
1/4 mile low 14's to high 13's
#/hp = 11.6

350z:
weight = 3225
hp = 287
tq = 274 ft-lbs
1/4 mile low 14's to high 13's
#/hp = 11.2

You're correct that the low torque car will have a harder time launching. I believe that for the S2000 to hit low 14's it has to drop the clutch at 5000-6000 rpms while the 350z only has to drop the clutch around 3000. Now if the S2000 and 350z were to race from a 5 mph roll then the 350z would eat the S2000 up but from a dig, with the proper launch, the S2000 can hang with the 350z. The 350z will also be more consistent from a dig, cause even if you screw up the launch you have the torque to save you. From a 20-30 mph roll the two cars will again be very very close.

So I still say that when comparing acceleration it comes down to horsepower and weight. Torque is a nice bonus (for those that like torquey cars) but is not necessary when just comparing a car's potential acceleration. Again...this is not an exact science...just a ball park figure (it does not compare area under the curve, gear ratios, drivetrain loss...etc.)

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


You're right that torque gives you that seat of the pants feeling but how do you explain why and S2000 and a 350z run the same 1/4 mile time when their respective torque values are over 100 ft-lbs different?

I can't answer that, as I don't have any factual numbers to compare. I can't use magazine stats because they are invariably innacurate, and I've yet to see an S2000 run at the track I frequent. I do know that everyone seems to comment on how much of a dog the S2000 is to drive though.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


You're correct that the low torque car will have a harder time launching. I believe that for the S2000 to hit low 14's it has to drop the clutch at 5000-6000 rpms while the 350z only has to drop the clutch around 3000. [ /B]

And what would happen if the 350 dropped at 5-6k as well? The Z would run faster. It's like you're forcing the Z to race in a higher gear by limiting it to a lower RPM.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
[B]

Now if the S2000 and 350z were to race from a 5 mph roll then the 350z would eat the S2000 up but from a dig, with the proper launch, the S2000 can hang with the 350z. The 350z will also be more consistent from a dig, cause even if you screw up the launch you have the torque to save you. From a 20-30 mph roll the two cars will again be very very close.

If the Z starts any of the above races in the proper gear, it will always win, because it's got the torque to get it's heavy ass moving:). I will admit though, that if you start the race at a high enough MPH, then torque WILL become a useless factor. I was referring to daily driving though. The torque numbers will cause the car with the more robust torque to be faster around town, which is why I mentioned comparing that number. Surely you wouldn't drive the S2000 @ 6000rpms all day long just to feel as fast:)

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


Again...this is not an exact science...just a ball park figure (it does not compare area under the curve, gear ratios, drivetrain loss...etc.)

I agree:D

Originally posted by Lethalchem

And what would happen if the 350 dropped at 5-6k as well? The Z would run faster. It's like you're forcing the Z to race in a higher gear by limiting it to a lower RPM.


If you drop the clutch at 5-6k with the 350z you'll smoke the tires. It's just like with the '03 Cobra which you launch at like 2000 rpms...anything higher and you sit and spin.


Originally posted by Lethalchem

If the Z starts any of the above races in the proper gear, it will always win, because it's got the torque to get it's heavy ass moving:). I will admit though, that if you start the race at a high enough MPH, then torque WILL become a useless factor. I was referring to daily driving though. The torque numbers will cause the car with the more robust torque to be faster around town, which is why I mentioned comparing that number. Surely you wouldn't drive the S2000 @ 6000rpms all day long just to feel as fast:)


If you start any rolling race while the S2000 is in VTEC then it will be very very close. this includes 1st gear which vtec kicks in somewhere in the 20's maybe. If you start the race at a speed where the S2000 is not in vtec (1-2x mph) then yes, the S2000 will lose some ground initially until vtec kicks in.

You're right that around town the S2000 will feel slower due to the lack of torque but we were talking about racing. But the acceleration is just a downshift or double downshift away. It's the same with the RX8...you use the gears for acceleration...not just the gas pedal. Where as with the 350z you can just mash on the gas.

If you go to the S2000 Forum (http://www.s2ki.com) you will find plenty of time slips and war stories of S2000 vs. 350z. They seem to be arch rivals like the RX8 vs. G35 vs. 350z.

People keep saying that torque is what gives you acceleration and I believe they are half right. You're missing a very important factor, it's torque AT THE WHEELS and weight what really matters. That's why you have to take gearing into consideration as well as weight. Simple Newton Laws... ;)

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


If you drop the clutch at 5-6k with the 350z you'll smoke the tires. It's just like with the '03 Cobra which you launch at like 2000 rpms...anything higher and you sit and spin.

If you start any rolling race while the S2000 is in VTEC then it will be very very close. this includes 1st gear which vtec kicks in somewhere in the 20's maybe. If you start the race at a speed where the S2000 is not in vtec (1-2x mph) then yes, the S2000 will lose some ground initially until vtec kicks in.

You're right that around town the S2000 will feel slower due to the lack of torque but we were talking about racing. But the acceleration is just a downshift or double downshift away. It's the same with the RX8...you use the gears for acceleration...not just the gas pedal. Where as with the 350z you can just mash on the gas.

If you go to the S2000 Forum (http://www.s2ki.com) you will find plenty of time slips and war stories of S2000 vs. 350z. They seem to be arch rivals like the RX8 vs. G35 vs. 350z.

I'm going to have to give in to you at this point. I'm at my limit of knowledge concerning these cars. Having never driven the 350 or the S2000, I don't feel educated enough about them to be able to rebuke, so I defer to your experience. :cool:

I'm not sure we were arguing in the same context though. You mentioned we were talking about drag racing, and I thought we were just discussing normal driving conditions. If we're talking drag racing, then everything's changed, because even my Cobra can be launched hard with ET streets.:D

On street tires, I can slip my clutch at 2500rpm and pull 1.93 60' times. Now I wish I would have done a launch with the RX-8 when I test drove it. Are you saying you can dump an S2000 at 5k without traction problems? I've never even ridden in one, so I have no clue. I thought any car on street tires would need AWD to pull that off.

I appreciate the information you gave, it's always good to hear new things about what's out there and what people are doing. This low-torque world is all new to me, so you guys will probably have to put up with a lot of my noob questions. Redirection and clarification is always welcome. Thanks:D.

P.S. I still don't believe you can dismiss torque from any equation involving accelleration:p

in my opinion the evo, is a lot faster than the rx8, I used to work for mitsu, and Mazda and the evo, is a lot faster, than the rx-8 but it req. a lot more to maintained, but is definitely faster....

Originally posted by Lethalchem

On street tires, I can slip my clutch at 2500rpm and pull 1.93 60' times. Now I wish I would have done a launch with the RX-8 when I test drove it. Are you saying you can dump an S2000 at 5k without traction problems? I've never even ridden in one, so I have no clue. I thought any car on street tires would need AWD to pull that off.


For any car that has high horsepower and low torque (S2000 or RX8) the key to drag racing is to get to where the car makes the most horsepower. For these cars its above 6000 rpms! These are probably the hardest street cars to launch. The key for the S2000 is to get enough tire spin to get the engine into VTEC but not so much tires spin that you just melt the tires. To little revs and the engine bogs. Bog one of these cars and the race is totally over because then you've got to climb from ~2000 rpms up to where the engine makes power. The reason for the high rpm launch is the engine does not make enough power to spin the tires until around 4-5k rpms (not sure one this one).

Originally posted by Lethalchem

P.S. I still don't believe you can dismiss torque from any equation involving accelleration:p

You're still right. Torque definately helps. In your Cobra you only need to drop the clutch at 2500. If you bog your car it's easy for it to recover compared to the S2000. That's where torque helps. You are probably much more consistent at launching than an S2000 owner.

Originally posted by neit_jnf

People keep saying that torque is what gives you acceleration and I believe they are half right. You're missing a very important factor, it's torque AT THE WHEELS and weight what really matters. That's why you have to take gearing into consideration as well as weight. Simple Newton Laws...


Here's a link to an earlier thred where I did the gear ratio calculations between the RX8 and 350z. It gets a little hard to compare these two cars because one redlines at 6500 while the other redlines at 9000. But since both the 350z and the RX8 gears have close to the same max speed in each gear then I would have to say that in each gear the 350z is faster.

My 350z vs RX8 gear ratio analysis (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3715&perpage=15&pagenumber=4)

In the end these are all cars with nearly the same power to weight ratios. So they're all very close to one another.

Also...one more thing to remember and why torque at the wheels is not so important.

hp = torque * rpms / 5252

The horsepower at the wheels never changes. The gears will multiply the torque but they also divide the rpms so the horsepower remains the same.

That is why all dyno's intersect tq/hp at 5252... easy to spot a fake dyno ;)

Also, check on the board at what some people are weighing in for the rx8 with sport package, there's been 2 or 3 that are just a click over 2900lbs ;)

I have that package, and I really need to hit up the truck scales on the other side of town soon ;)

uhmmm....................no

i don't get it

uhmm...no what?

Originally posted by m477

The dyno was for the LOW POWER engine.

Also, this confirms that the RX-8 has approximately a 15% drivetrain loss, which means my original estimate of 215 rwhp is pretty much dead on.


It is a well known fact that pretty much all the "280hp" Japanese cars put out well over 280hp, so this is irrelevant...

180 WHP on the low power engine meaning the A/T? My 8 feels quick and all..but it feels more in the range of...160 WHP...

Originally posted by revhappy
Hehe.....but it for $20K (estimated price difference), is too steep a price to get some......:) Of course, the fact that it has a backseat also can come in handy. :D

Never EVER bone down in your car if you love it...it's a curse. My Civic for instance...my lady and I got busy in it a couple of times...then the engine burnt a valve...started building a race engine. Six months later, the burnt valve was accompanied by a bent rod. The engine is still not complete. NEVER EVER GET BUSY IN A CAR!

As for torque VS HP from a stand still...

Why is it that of two cars that are extremely similar in all aspects other than the engine will yield roughly the same performance stats?

No idea? Compare an Acura Integra in base trim with a 00 Honda Civic Si. They both weigh in at approxiamently 2700 lbs. Both are FF setups with about the same weight distribution.

Civic Si = 160 BHP & 111 ft-lb.
Integra LS = 140 BHP & 132 ft-lb.

They both run pretty much the same quarter mile. On the 1/8 mile, the LS wins.

Hmmm... what kinda car did you guys own/driven before you got in the RX8 and said it's "freakin fast"????

I love the looks of the car but I heard the news that Mazda lied about the HP #'s, and an owner actually dynoed his 6-speed at something like 180 WHP and 117 lb ft of torque.

That made me very curious and I went to the dealership today.... test drove the 6-speed in hopes of not too much disappointment. Well guess what..... the car has no power whatsoever. Comparing it to my car (99' Eclipse GST) this car has no low end torque, and it's nowhere near being "freakin fast" at WOT. I doubt it even produces 200HP using my butt dyno.

Even though I have never driven the EVO, but rated at 280hp, I'd say it's going to be MUCH faster than the RX8... considering that my car at 210hp is already faster.

Everything about the car is great, I just wish it had more torque/power.

It all is a package. Power/Weight/Handling/Brakes etc...

I just wish my package had an extra 50HP. Then it would be a real weapon :)

I have come from a 300+ rwHP LS1 to the RX8. The straight line acceleration is not the same, but that is about the only downside.

I'm still smiling :) My dealer told me it had the same power as the previous turbo RX though. I never challenged him on that. It is apparent now that that was not exactly true :(

Cheers,
Hymee.

Power is relative...because as an advertisement tool, the dealers are quick to point out horsepower, which is fine and dandy and all, but without the low end torque to back it up, the horsepower just feels souless. I agree..I want the extra package that hooked up an extra 50 HP, while they're at it, throw in the missing 30 lbs of torque too ;)

Originally posted by tike012
hi guys, been lurkin' on this site for a while, but never posted because, sadly, the rx-8 is waayyyy out of my price range. plus i'll have to wait a couple years before i can purchase a car of any kind (3rd-gen rx-7, maybe?)

anyway, i felt the urge to post a reply in defense of the evo. one of my best friends owns one, and i can tell you guys that it's difficult to imagine it being raped by a 300hp FD. i think it'd be pretty close, actually.

it's just that for an evo, your 30K is buying you pure performance and zero luxury (interior looks really cheap). depends on where your priorities lay. pricewise the rx-8 and evo are neck and neck, but there's no question which one i'd rather walk out the door with :D

with 265 RWHP in my rx7 last year I ran a 13.00 @ 108.3 on regular tires with a 2.03 60'. Not to be mean, but a 300 rwhp FD will eat an Evo for lunch and not even bother to spit out the pistons.

Quote by a jackass..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... what kinda car did you guys own/driven before you got in the RX8 and said it's "freakin fast"????

I love the looks of the car but I heard the news that Mazda lied about the HP #'s, and an owner actually dynoed his 6-speed at something like 180 WHP and 117 lb ft of torque.

That made me very curious and I went to the dealership today.... test drove the 6-speed in hopes of not too much disappointment. Well guess what..... the car has no power whatsoever. Comparing it to my car (99' Eclipse GST) this car has no low end torque, and it's nowhere near being "freakin fast" at WOT. I doubt it even produces 200HP using my butt dyno.

Even though I have never driven the EVO, but rated at 280hp, I'd say it's going to be MUCH faster than the RX8... considering that my car at 210hp is already faster.

Everything about the car is great, I just wish it had more torque/power.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to be an ass but I think you are full of shit. I highly doubt you went to a Dealer and test drove an rx8 at WOT. You cant drive them like that until they are broken in, most test drive cars are not. Hence the reason they will not let you drive the car like a jackass. Im not saying the car is freaking fast either but its deff. not freaking slow. Please take you and your piece of shit crank walking gst somewhere else. This is a form for people who appreaciate real sports cars.

Oh, and by the way. I own a 93Fd and yes.. Its "Freaking Fast"

Mazda owns, go somewhere else

Well...once they hand you the keys to a RX8 and put you in a driver's seat, there really isn't much they can do to keep you from flooring it. That's all I can say about that.

Originally posted by -=Zeqs=-
Well...once they hand you the keys to a RX8 and put you in a driver's seat, there really isn't much they can do to keep you from flooring it. That's all I can say about that.

Agreed! Now learn the limits of the car and drive like a maniac at autox or a track day ;)

Let's keep the language civil in here, please!

Originally posted by 93silverFD
Quote by a jackass..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... what kinda car did you guys own/driven before you got in the RX8 and said it's "freakin fast"????

I love the looks of the car but I heard the news that Mazda lied about the HP #'s, and an owner actually dynoed his 6-speed at something like 180 WHP and 117 lb ft of torque.

That made me very curious and I went to the dealership today.... test drove the 6-speed in hopes of not too much disappointment. Well guess what..... the car has no power whatsoever. Comparing it to my car (99' Eclipse GST) this car has no low end torque, and it's nowhere near being "freakin fast" at WOT. I doubt it even produces 200HP using my butt dyno.

Even though I have never driven the EVO, but rated at 280hp, I'd say it's going to be MUCH faster than the RX8... considering that my car at 210hp is already faster.

Everything about the car is great, I just wish it had more torque/power.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to be an ass but I think you are full of shit. I highly doubt you went to a Dealer and test drove an rx8 at WOT. You cant drive them like that until they are broken in, most test drive cars are not. Hence the reason they will not let you drive the car like a jackass. Im not saying the car is freaking fast either but its deff. not freaking slow. Please take you and your piece of shit crank walking gst somewhere else. This is a form for people who appreaciate real sports cars.

Oh, and by the way. I own a 93Fd and yes.. Its "Freaking Fast"

Mazda owns, go somewhere else

Whoa whoa...was I being rude in the first place? I was trying real hard not to be. If I wanted to be a jackass trust me, I easily could've been worse.

The original topic starter exaggerated a little too much, and since I've actually driven the damn car, I thought I would give some input.

And during the test drive, I didn't intend to go WOT, but when we were turning back to the dealer, the salesman was like "gun it around this corner". I was thinking, "is this guy crazy? what if I oversteer and crash?". Well I went fast but not WOT....

Then comes a straight road, the salesman once agian said "try going really fast right here so you can feel the power".... I was hesitant, but my friend was like "dude gun it". And I was like "ahh wth", so I dropped it to 2nd and revved all the way up to 8k, didn't want to go to redline because as you said, it's not broken in yet.

I know the RX7 is fast, and I love that car, if you read my post I have not said anything bad about the FD. And as for the RX8, you guys have to admit it's not that fast. It's by no means slow, but it's not "freakin fast" either. Just calm down Mr. Mazda Pride. I'm intending to get the RX8 too, I'm not coming on here trying to start shit. I'm unbiase, I just state the facts and my personal opinions.

I agree...the RX-8 is not "freaking fast", on the straight aways. But take that thing throw some twisties with a driver that really is competent, not someone that thinks they are because they own a sports car, and they'll show you how the RX-8 truly is freaking fast.

However...I did notice you mentioned that your friend told you to listen the dealer and gun it. That means there was at least two extra bodies in the car? Not to beat a dead horse to soil, but the extra 150 lbs does make a slight difference in acceleration, especially in a car that is pretty gutless low end. It's like two fat chicks riding in a MR2 Spyder, and still expecting it to hit 15's in the quarter.

Stock 3rd. gen. RX7 will give evo a very good run. It'll probably be a very close race. 300 HP FD would crush evo.

MR2 Spyder? Eclipse? Please... these are not even in the same league as an RX-8. No way an Eclipse handles, brakes, revs or puts power down like the 8. I know the 8 is not a butt kickin' off the line power demon, but if you know how and when to accelerate in the right rev range at the right speeds, there's no doubt... it's fast!

I agree w/ javahut...and this thread is pathetic...it's obvious from reading the originator's statement and several of the lame replies that these are probably kids w/ little or no experience and that are just re-gurgitating stuff they've read elsewhere.

Who was comparing the MR2 with the RX8?

I simply used the MR2 as an example of how extra weight affects off the line performance on cars that do not have much torque to begin with. Lol...someone has their panties in a knot...

Damn SOME of you RX8 owners are really stuck up thinking your car is the best thing out there. Stop it with the chin up in the air and pumped up chest attitude.

For those of you that praise the RX8 so highly you obviously owned a civic or corolla prior to owning the RX8. Honestly and unbiasely I would say if I was getting a car for SPEED, CORNERING, and BRAKING.... the RX8 would be the last on my list. I hear so much about the car being light.... it's "freakin" over 3000 lbs.... that isn't light.

That car without a doubt has stunning looks inside and out, and the price is right. As of now I'm still fixed on the RX8, so as I said I'm not trying to put your cars down, I'm just stating truthful opinions. Some of you guys are like supra owners, but without a car with the balls to back up the attitude.

I don't know what you were smoking during that test drive, but you need to stop. It's got you talking crap about a car on the car's forum. But, I guess you know better, so, I guess we need to take what you say as the facts, cuz we're just a world full of idiots who don't have a clue about what "freakin fast" is. DOH!

NSKGenakuDuckie,

Whether you mean to or not, your posts are coming across as condescending and rude. Please post your opinions politely, or not at all. If you are going to disagree with people, that's fine. But do it less abrasively.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
If you look at the power to weight ratios of the two it's pretty close:

EVO8 = 3260/271 = 12.0 #/hp
RX8 = 3029/247 = 12.2 #/hp

But....the EVO8 has a broader power band....but the RX8 is able to hold the gears longer. It's close but only from a roll. From a stop the EVO has the choice of destroying the RX8 (along with clutch or tranny) or keep it close.

As far as a EVO8 being close to the acceleration of a 300 hp FD...no way. The FD is close, if not faster, stock.

Unfortunatley your numbers are off as the RX-8 only makes around 210 horsepower in the "high power" version. Therfore it's power to weight is maore like 14.4 # / hp.

As for the comments about the Evo versus an RX-7. A stock Evo will beat a stock FD to 60mph and through the 1/4 mile. After that the RX-7 will close the gap because of better aerodynamics, and 2 wheel drive. As for modifying the Evo and the RX-7, I beleive both are fantastic platforms to make extremely fast cars even faster. The Evo is probably a better choice mainly from a reilability standpoint. Not exactly a FD trademark.

Now as to which car is quicker around a track........that would be the Evo in the hands of 90% of drivers. 10% of drivers may be quicker in a stock FD, perhaps. Of course the size and type of the track comes into play as well. Don't underestimate the ability of an Evo around a racetrack. As you start adding modifications then the advantage swings in the RX-7's favor as long as the session isn't more than 20 minutes long!:D Then you may need a fresh motor waiting at home in the fridge because you have cooked the one in your car at the track.

Thor.

hi power 8 producing 210hp??
Yah ok. Here we go again

I know my 8 isn't the fastest car in the world and i will never go to a drag strip with it, BUT it is faster than the vast majority of cars on the road and EATS corners like sheriff's deputies eat donuts at the give away table. I love my car. I love the fact I can be just ploding along in 3rd gear at 3000rpm --floor the gas and blip the clutch and absolutely smoke the tires. Makes me giggle like a damn school girl. Can your car do that?

Originally posted by THOR
Unfortunatley your numbers are off as the RX-8 only makes around 210 horsepower in the "high power" version. Therfore it's power to weight is maore like 14.4 # / hp.

As for the comments about the Evo versus an RX-7. A stock Evo will beat a stock FD to 60mph and through the 1/4 mile. After that the RX-7 will close the gap because of better aerodynamics, and 2 wheel drive. As for modifying the Evo and the RX-7, I beleive both are fantastic platforms to make extremely fast cars even faster. The Evo is probably a better choice mainly from a reilability standpoint. Not exactly a FD trademark.

Now as to which car is quicker around a track........that would be the Evo in the hands of 90% of drivers. 10% of drivers may be quicker in a stock FD, perhaps. Of course the size and type of the track comes into play as well. Don't underestimate the ability of an Evo around a racetrack. As you start adding modifications then the advantage swings in the RX-7's favor as long as the session isn't more than 20 minutes long!:D Then you may need a fresh motor waiting at home in the fridge because you have cooked the one in your car at the track.

Thor.

you drive an EVO don't you? and your statistics can you prove them? :)

it makes me laugh when guys on here claim the 8 is a slow car?
with the aftermarket heating up, it was always at the top of my list to buy.
And to the guy you gracefully put us down about loving our car, every mag out there gave the 8 strong praises in handling etc. No doubt there are faster cars out there, but the 8 will be faster than most at a light. Canzoomer just finished his stage one Fuel controller giving about 20-25hp in the mid range rpms, all the way up to redline, and I think the car will surprise a few people when they try to pull away.
Even stock it has enough power to be fun!

Originally posted by zerobanger
with 265 RWHP in my rx7 last year I ran a 13.00 @ 108.3 on regular tires with a 2.03 60'. Not to be mean, but a 300 rwhp FD will eat an Evo for lunch and not even bother to spit out the pistons.

That would be correct. A 300 Whp RX-7 is usually running around a low 12 second 1/4 mile and would destroy a stock Evo. A 300 whp Evo also runs aorund a 12.4 @ 111 MPH as well: http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51227

I would still expect the RX-7 to pull on it at higher speeds due to the lower drag and 2wd of the RX-7.

Thor.

Originally posted by RX-GR8
you drive an EVO don't you? and your statistics can you prove them? :)

Actually I used to own a 93 RX-7, and will be buying an Evo shortly. As for stats, just pop on the Evo forum. Plenty of people running 11 and 12 second 1/4 miles with the Evo. Mazda admits it overated the RX-8. In Europe the car is rated at 228 horsepower, which means it is not making that here. European car magazines: Evo, Car and Autocar have all questioned the acceleration of the RX-8 as it is lacking in a car making 228 horsepower. For example Autocars test:

0-60 MPH 7.1 sec
0-100 MPH 18.1 sec
30-70 MPH 6.8 sec

Not exactly a swift car. The Evo is of course much faster:

Lancer Evo VIII

0-60 MPH 4.8 sec
0-100 MPH 12.7 sec
30-70 MPH 4.9 sec.

Thor.

??

never saw thosenumbers, and did they do the test from a hard launch.....sorry, but there is no way the 8 from a dead stop does a time of over 7secs from 0-60.
Nice try though
Every time tested has been from 5.9-6.4 secs

oh and by the way, I did read a euro mag that tested the 8 at 7 secs plus from 0-60.....it was the auto, not the manual !
they had a time of 6.4secs from 0-62mph for the manual, and over 7.2 for the auto

Originally posted by NskGenakuDuckie
Hmmm... what kinda car did you guys own/driven before you got in the RX8 and said it's "freakin fast"???? 1970 Dodge Challenger 440 6-pak, A-833 4-speed, 12.0:1 pistons, 284 degree cam. 1996 Ford Mustang SVT Cobra. And a few others if you want to go back way too many years.
No, my RX-8 is not the fastest, but it's still very fast! And MUCH more civilised.

Originally posted by Broker73
??

never saw thosenumbers, and did they do the test from a hard launch.....sorry, but there is no way the 8 from a dead stop does a time of over 7secs from 0-60.
Nice try though
Every time tested has been from 5.9-6.4 secs

Autocar magazine tested the car and the results are posted above. In fact they have a long term tester in their fleet. So not every time was below 7 seconds. They also averaged 22.5 MPG!!! Here's a link to the test:

http://www.autocarmag.com/RoadTest_Summary.asp?
RT=202089

http://www.autocarmag.com/RoadTest_FullData.asp?RT=202089

Thor.

Originally posted by Broker73
hi power 8 producing 210hp??
Yah ok. Here we go again

Unless you have dynoed your RX-8 and made over the 170-180 WHP/110-115 Lb foot that these cars make on a dynojet then you do not have more than around 210 horsepower. This car dynos at 55-60 whp less than a 350Z, and around 20 whp less than a Honda S2000. That would make it right around 210 horsepower.

Thor.