Hey everyone,
Just wondering what you all think is an overrated or underrated sports car. I was just thinking about this the other day and thought about how everyone believes that the skyline is the best import car of all time. I can understand why they think that, twin turbo inline 6 awd. Very nice, a masterpiece by nissan. But i was watching so many japanese videos where stock, an rx7 took our an r34 vspec 2 on track racing. I remember watching fast and the furious when it came out and 2 fast 2 furious and when the skyline came out, all the teens and college students that were there all jaws dropped and just thought to myself, its nice but on the heavy side (the stats of the car impress me more than the looks). I mean, they are nice cars but i feel that most of its noteriety is because it never showed up in the states and because you really got to be rich to have one. Also, as a former supra lover, these cars are freaking crazy nice (twin turbo, inline 6, rwd and blahblahblah). Lovely machines but i fell are overrated. Though i enjoyed seeing it in the gillette (i think thats how you spell it) commercials.

Mazda RX7's i feel are underrated here because of the bad reputation they have for being unreliable and because they don't live up to the other super cars (because of lowers hp and torque). I feel like the US is more inclined on drag racing and straight road racing that i feel like they don't really appreciate the ability of a cars handling on the track (may not be true for everyone but i feel like its the majority of people). I know here, we all appreciate the rx8's abilities on the road. I remember hearing a discussion in the coffee shop that i work at that these two guys were arguing about the japanese super cars. One man mentioned the rx7 as being one of the japanese supercars and the other just started to laugh saying it shouldn't be considered one and calling it a peice of junk. I felt inlcined to defend but we were getting busy and i couldn't comment about it. But yeah, some people just don't appreciate the rx7.

Also, i feel like the 240sx (s13 and 14's) are highly underrated in the US. I know that s15's and s14's in japan compete with skylines, supras, rx7's and ect. and even has the potential to beat them but over here, i mean only time i see them is in drifting competitions and car shows here. When i see them on the road, always some old people driving them, most are pretty wore down but i feel those are some nice vehicles.
Thanks to initial D, the AE86 is getting pretty popular now and days, those are nice cars but its hard to find an alright condition one because of its age but it was really underrated until initial d mainstreamed it.

Integra Type R's, overrated because its a GSR but lighter. I just feel like its overrated because everyone wants it just to have a Type R but most people i know that have it dislike it because no power windows, no A\C and i ask why did you get it? They answer, its a type r. Then i tell them not to complain about all those stuff because they choose to get a true racing car. That car is not made for comfort or convenience, its made for tracking and so on. I mean, if you want it that bad with all the convenience, save some time and money and get a GSR and just put type r badges and stuff on it.

The RX8 i feel is underrated because of lack of hp and torque that so many people say about the 8. They compare it to the rx7 like its the replacement for the rx7 but its not. 2 different type of cars, 2 different classes. Most people don't appreciate the suspension and control of the car (except for all of your that are aprat of this forum). A guy came up to me while getting gas and said why did you get this car? I responded by saying, the looks, and the control that i have when driving and he responded by saying, that the rx8 is a peice of trash and called it a wannabe sports car and blah blah blah. Oh man, i felt so offended by that guy and just thought to myself that no one appreciates what mazda tuned the car for, for tracking.

ANYWAYS, i would like to know what you all think is an overrated and underrated car in the US. Most contries i feel appreciate most if not all cars that are out. But i would like to know what you all think.

side note: sorry for the long long long very long, could be a book thought. I guess i started venting my frustration while i was typing that. Well, i thank you all for your patience and all of what was said was my opinion and i dont want it to seem like im talking trash about other vehicles. I do appreciate all the vehicles because the designers created them for specialty things. So please don't think that i'm hating on certain vehicles b/c i'm not, just stating an opinion. Thanks for reading though! You must all be pretty mad at my long venting post.

- Jon

The Skyline (#) is mega overrated. The rb26 is over rated in terms of engines too, i feel the 2jz is superior. The supra is also over rated. I too, still love the car, its beautiful and can put down some serious power with very little effort but you know its over rated when you pay the same price for the car used with 40,000 miles on it as you did brand new. I will agree the 7 is underrated. The 240sx's (#) are a bit pansy here because of the lack of the sr20det and because we never got the s15 which, in my opinion is easily the best looking. I think, along with any prelude (#), civic (#), integra and crx, the eclipses (some are good but the majority are not) are overrated. I think the boxter and 911( maybe not as much but it is a damn fine car) are a bit underrated here in the US. Of course im gonna say the 8 is underrated but im tired of people telling me i should have gotten the Z. The Z is a good car but i think its just a bit overrated.

I think most people overrated the GTR's power (not comparing with supercars here) but underrated its AWD system.

The 350Z is overrated (no offense Z owners, I love the car as well but non-true enthusiast seem to think its so bloody fast, I would think that it would have a hard time going against STI or EVO).

The 8 is certainly underrated coz most look at specs sheets and ignore it totally, little did they ever consider OVERALL BALANCE but I agree it could use a bit more torque.

The Type R is also underrated and its not just a little more than a GSR, even a Type S is far from coming close to a Type R in terms of performance, as for power windows and stuff, the Type R do come with these as options coz the imports in my country all have them.

Celica GTS is underrated

i agree on mostly on what you said.. but i think you are somewhat confusing poplularity with overrated.

there is a reason why the skyline and supra eVO STi type R as well as other cars are popular.. they are remarkable cars because of their character and their potential, simply put they were and still are a technological break throughs

with the introduction of twin turbos and AWD and Vtecs..pretty amazing if you think about it..

yes unfortunately the rotary never really caught on by the masses because of its crucial weakness.. the thirst for gas and oil.

and the bad rep the FDs had, just made it worse...a real car guy knows what the FD is and the its capabilities..

i honestly think if it wasnt for gas prices and excessive oil consumption, the FD would be recognised for what it is and if they continued building the car till 02 like they did in japan.. slowly upping the power each year to match those of the skylines and supras.. it would have been an instant hit..

the gas station guy is right to some point .. our 8s are a hybrid, leaning more towards sports car but it does have some sedan in it... its unique and thats what sets this car apart.. just the fact that it doesnt have a conventional engine sets it apart from the rest...

and think about it this way how many people in their lifetime have the chance to drive a rotary powered car compared to a piston engine which drives 99.99% of cars out there!

we are different and in a world where different is not always appreciated ....think of yourself as a unique individual...someone who has seen the otherside... and laughs back at the ignorance, and close mindedness of people...just laugh back at him and feel sorry for him.
:)

i agree on mostly on what you said.. but i think you are somewhat confusing poplularity with overrated.

there is a reason why the skyline and supra eVO STi type R as well as other cars are popular.. they are remarkable cars because of their character and their potential, simply put they were and still are a technological break throughs

with the introduction of twin turbos and AWD and Vtecs..pretty amazing if you think about it..

yes unfortunately the rotary never really caught on by the masses because of its crucial weakness.. the thirst for gas and oil.

and the bad rep the FDs had, just made it worse...a real car guy knows what the FD is and the its capabilities..

i honestly think if it wasnt for gas prices and excessive oil consumption, the FD would be recognised for what it is and if they continued building the car till 02 like they did in japan.. slowly upping the power each year to match those of the skylines and supras.. it would have been an instant hit..

the gas station guy is right to some point .. our 8s are a hybrid, leaning more towards sports car but it does have some sedan in it... its unique and thats what sets this car apart.. just the fact that it doesnt have a conventional engine sets it apart from the rest...

and think about it this way how many people in their lifetime have the chance to drive a rotary powered car compared to a piston engine which drives 99.99% of cars out there!

we are different and in a world where different is not always appreciated ....think of yourself as a unique individual...someone who has seen the otherside... and laughs back at the ignorance, and close mindedness of people...just laugh back at him and feel sorry for him.
:)

True, i might of got a little side tracked with popularity when talking about the gtr and supra. I love the supra, i still dream about cheating on my rx8 with it, hahaha! But i have a look but no touch policy compromise with my baby. Anyways, i do agree with them being a technological break though and i'm impressed by it but at the same time, i guess the vast majority overrate the car because they see it in movies and sort of like the holy grail. Yes, its a technological break though but don't over simplify the fact of power and etc. With the gtr, big innovations and at the same time, sacrificing weight and etc. Also i'm going rotary all the way now! In a year about, im going to purchase an FD, hopefully r2 or r1 if i can find one stock. But from the day i got the 8, i agreed never to get a piston car unless its a family suv or van. With the suv, im thinking about the cx7 cause its sort of an offspring of the 8.

But anyways, it just somewhat irritates me that kids, teens and even adults would just use the spec sheet as evidence of the car. Sure spec sheets say a lot but most don't realize the potential within cars.

For YIKSING: I didn't know the type r came with those features. I should of done more research on that but with like 5 friends that own a type r, none of them got those options on it. Kinda wierd. And i agree with you about the 350z. Also, yeah, the celica is underrated and if they came out with the gt-4 in US (im pretty sure they didnt come out in the US), the celica market would be up there. Too bad some people don't realize that without the celica, the supra may never have existed.

If we are also talking about past underrated cars, one of my favorites is the Celica GT4 ST205, we never got it here in North America (don't know why, we got the older models). This thing was all wheel drive, 242BHP, looked cool, was packed with techno goodies, and won tons of WRC races.

I totally agree with what RX4life said about why those certain types of cars were popular, the technological breakthroughs were what people identified with in those cars. Take the the Integra Type-R for instance, true it wasn't the fastest car around but it had the highest hp/liter N/A engine available, and it was the best handling front wheel drive car around. So yes the Type-R was hugely popular but definately not overrated.

RX-8 is over rated.

Ford Focus is under rated.

Ford Focus FTW!!!!

PWN3D

OMGWTFBBQ

If we are also talking about past underrated cars, one of my favorites is the Celica GT4 ST205, we never got it here in North America (don't know why, we got the older models). This thing was all wheel drive, 242BHP, looked cool, was packed with techno goodies, and won tons of WRC races.

I totally agree with what RX4life said about why those certain types of cars were popular, the technological breakthroughs were what people identified with in those cars. Take the the Integra Type-R for instance, true it wasn't the fastest car around but it had the highest hp/liter N/A engine available, and it was the best handling front wheel drive car around. So yes the Type-R was hugely popular but definately not overrated.

Yeah we (as in the US) missed out greatly from the gt4. Really sucks for us. I can see where you and rx4life are coming from with the type r and it probably is true. The US is a deprived nation in terms of cars. We missed out with type r's, rx7's, celcia gt4, skylines and even silvias/240's. A lot of these cars are popular due to rarity except for the rx7 because of the bad rep. If only the majority knew about the bathurst, type r, rz and even the spirt r, i believe yeah, the view on the car would be different just like rx4life said.

Again, i'm sorry for the mix up between overrated and popularity but the 2 can sometimes intertwine with each other.

Another underrated vehicle i just though of was the mitsubishi gto aka 3000gt. I just thought about it because it was considered one of the super cars between 1990-1999 because of the AWD and twin turbo. I believe its underrated because mitsubishi did the vr-4 (the awd model twin turbo) but never got the kudos that nissan did. Even though it was crude and less technological, i mean they deserve to be noticed but was swept aside due to the gtr's. Even the rarest convertible hard top with auto retactable hardtop vr-4 didn't get kudos for being one of the rarest and last super cars made in the past decade. Thought i would also add this car to the list of underrated.

For an overrated car, some could argue the STI because of the spec sheet even though so many test compared it against the evo and the times and starts were almost and if no identical to each other. Though the STI boast 300+hp i believe while the evo mr's only have 278 hp, throttle response on the evo is a little bit quicker and so on but the misconception of hp=everything blinds people of real stats. But this car might be another intertwining between popularity and overated so if it is, i'm sorry for the adding but i though i should throw this in to the pile.

RX-8 is over rated.

Ford Focus is under rated.

Ford Focus FTW!!!!

PWN3D

OMGWTFBBQ

I'm curious why you think the rx8 is overrated and the ford focus is underrated. It'll be cool to give us your reasoning, i'm interested in reading why. (I dont want to seem like mean or anything cause everyone has a right to their own opinion, im just a curious person. Haha)

I'm curious why you think the rx8 is overrated and the ford focus is underrated. It'll be cool to give us your reasoning, i'm interested in reading why. (I dont want to seem like mean or anything cause everyone has a right to their own opinion, im just a curious person. Haha)

Sarcasm > You

Sarcasm > You

hahaha, i'm really curious! I just didnt know how else to put it because everything else that i typed seemed sorta messed up. Haha, i tried.. i tried :Eyecrazy:


Forgot to add, im honored by the great IKE's presence into my little unworthy thread. I read too many threads with you in it, never thought you would drop in to my little one. :bowdown:

BTW, what year did the US first get the WRX or EVO?

hahaha, i'm really curious! I just didnt know how else to put it because everything else that i typed seemed sorta messed up. Haha, i tried.. i tried :Eyecrazy:


Forgot to add, im honored by the great IKE's presence into my little unworthy thread. I read too many threads with you in it, never thought you would drop in to my little one. :bowdown:

I was simly pointing out that Shaolin was kidding. Though if for some reason he isn't it could certainly be argued that the Focus is underrated, they're great little cars, especially models like the Focus RS that we don't get here. Autocar did a test a little while back and the Focus RS was 4.1 seconds a lap faster than the RX-8 :eek:

In response to your original question, it's tough to answer since I'm not sure whos ratings we're talking about. I think the GTR and Supra deserve all the hype they get, they are incredible cars that helped changed the way all Japanese performance cars would be viewed for years to come. The 3000GT stands out as a car that is overrated by the casual car guy, it's an understeering pig of a car that has some neat gadgets. The Silvia is also overrated in my eyes, they can be really good cars but it takes pretty extensive mods to make them that way. Here in the US they're underpowered yet so many kids think they can buy one, put on some graphics and a exhaust, and suddenly they have a super fast drift car...

One underrated car for me is the MKII MR2, the car just didn't sell and it's still a great little performance car by modern standards. The SRT-4 also wasn't given enough credit for being a good all around car and one amazing performance bargain. It one of those cars that other people like to pick on and disregard as being nothing more than fast ina straight line.

BTW, what year did the US first get the WRX or EVO?

2002, sad we missed so many good cars, the STI showed up in 2003 :(

i think one of the rare japanese cars we here in the US missed was the altezza(lexus IS300). In japan as a toyota model it was a pretty fast 4 door rear-drive sedan, boasting the supra's 2jz engine in the turbo form(i think it was a single turbo instead of the twin version.) Also its rear tail lights gave birth the the "altezza" clear lamp look that everyone liked.

One underrated car for me is the MKII MR2, the car just didn't sell and it's still a great little performance car by modern standards. The SRT-4 also wasn't given enough credit for being a good all around car and one amazing performance bargain. It one of those cars that other people like to pick on and disregard as being nothing more than fast ina straight line.

Good call! This has got to be one of the most forgotten cars ever! Mid engine and if I remember correctly it had the 50/50 weight distribution going for it too!

Was that MKII MR2 the one from the early 90s? I remember that car; it was quite fast for its time, but insurance was outrageous for it. Then they went with the wedge shaped one with the supercharger in it.

This was the Mk2. ignore the tape. I really liked these cars, this is what I would like Toyota to bring back instead of the Supra. Only done right, not all half ass like the Mk3.
http://kuruma.cside.com/off/images/040703/car/mr2-b.jpg

This was the Mk2. ignore the tape. I really liked these cars, this is what I would like Toyota to bring back instead of the Supra. Only done right, not all half ass like the Mk3.
http://kuruma.cside.com/off/images/040703/car/mr2-b.jpg

Beautiful, and that one is a turbo!

2002, sad we missed so many good cars, the STI showed up in 2003 :(

Wow... I was wondering why you guys never mentioned anything about MY93 or the very first generation of WRX. The MY93 - MY98 were very small cars... I actually preferred the smaller dimension compared to the MY01 platform. I've also had MY98 WRX and MY01 Sti with those round headlights. Not the pretty, however it went OK!

Back on topic...

I once benchmarked my Sti against a Porshe Carrera 911 3.4 litre 221 kW model. My Sti was rated at 206kW. First 3 gears the STi is pretty quick... very very quick. However, at about 160 km/h on fourth with turbo boost spooled up, a Porsche 911 just blew me away. My foot nearly popped through the firewall with vigorous force and wondered whatever happened to my turbo power???? That feeling of just seeing the back end of that Porsche pulling away is something I cannot forget. Effortless grunt and power from a 3.4 litre NA. I guess I can say I overrated my STi against a thoroughbred... hahaha!.

Another was an S2000... which kept buzzing next to me in my STi up to about 180 km/h... 5th gear and above 200km/h... the STi slowly pulls away. S2000 underrated. IT is quick once it is in the engine's powerband.

MY01 Sti has great mid-range... however, top end power seems to tapper off quickly and you are just left spinning the motor to redline "coz you can".

I grew up and got myself an RX8 :ylsuper: . Hmmm... and this is the first time I have ever joined a forum. :mdrmed: OR went out on drive days with fellow RX8 owners and doing track days, and anything that cost money that involves my RX8. :mdrmed:

Wow... I was wondering why you guys never mentioned anything about MY93 or the very first generation of WRX. The MY93 - MY98 were very small cars... I actually preferred the smaller dimension compared to the MY01 platform. I've also had MY98 WRX and MY01 Sti with those round headlights. Not the pretty, however it went OK!

Back on topic...

I once benchmarked my Sti against a Porshe Carrera 911 3.4 litre 221 kW model. My Sti was rated at 206kW. First 3 gears the STi is pretty quick... very very quick. However, at about 160 km/h on fourth with turbo boost spooled up, a Porsche 911 just blew me away. My foot nearly popped through the firewall with vigorous force and wondered whatever happened to my turbo power???? That feeling of just seeing the back end of that Porsche pulling away is something I cannot forget. Effortless grunt and power from a 3.4 litre NA. I guess I can say I overrated my STi against a thoroughbred... hahaha!.

Another was an S2000... which kept buzzing next to me in my STi up to about 180 km/h... 5th gear and above 200km/h... the STi slowly pulls away. S2000 underrated. IT is quick once it is in the engine's powerband.

MY01 Sti has great mid-range... however, top end power seems to tapper off quickly and you are just left spinning the motor to redline "coz you can".

I grew up and got myself an RX8 :ylsuper: . Hmmm... and this is the first time I have ever joined a forum. :mdrmed: OR went out on drive days with fellow RX8 owners and doing track days, and anything that cost money that involves my RX8. :mdrmed:

AWD drivetrain loss sometimes is a killer when you are moving especially when you look at the Porsche already having more power at the flywheel. The S2000 is more than likely close enough in power but lighter giving it an advantage and in all reality at speeds like that the rwd really shows the advantage! Cars like the STI and Evo are really at their best below 100mph (160km/h).

I agree with Ike with Focus. The new 2.3s are great. Get a Cosworth tune kit and your at 230bhp NA and ready for turbo. Sex. Also you can swap a 3.0l Dura V6, 2.5 Dura V6, 5.0 cammer, 4.6 V8 and almost anyother Ford V8 under that hood. It is a fun car and can be made with FWD performance and AWD performance due to its versatility.

Another car is the Escort Cosworth. I love that damn car. Many don't realize the performance of that thing.

I was going to name the MK2, a much better car than the Supra in those same years, imo.

more of a problem is the bastardization of the word 'sports car'. Every Kia owner with a big wing claims to own a sports car nowadays.

:(

more of a problem is the bastardization of the word 'sports car'. Every Kia owner with a big wing claims to own a sports car nowadays.

:(

Couldn't agree with you more! When I hear certain vehicles called "sports cars", I often think of the witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
BEDEMIR: How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: She looks like one.
....
VILLAGER #1: She has got a wart.

My version:
ME: How do you know that it's a sports car?
RICER: It looks like one!
RICER: It has two doors and a wing, it must be a sports car!

Personally, I like to recognize two categories: sports cars (cars that have the performance aspect to satisfy the "sport" part of the equation: Corvette, GTO, Evo, STi, etc) and sporty cars (cars that look like sports cars but don't have the performance to back it up: Celica, RSX, etc). But, that's just my opinion!

Where would the Miata fit in your list, Eric?

Sports Car = Light weight, two seater, maybe 2+2, but mostly 2-seater. Rear-wheel drive. Nimble, and fun to drive.

STI? Not a sports car. A sporting car, sure. A fast car no doubt. Not light weight, has four doors, awd.

People need to understand it's OKAY for their car to not be a 'sports car' - 'sports car' is NOT the defining label which makes a car fun, or cool, or not.

:)

I remember the Top Gear episode were they compair the new super cars (#) like the Enzo, Carrera GT (#), and Zonda against the older supercars like the F40, XJ220 and the F1. Technology is a great thing but as shown the older super cars blitzed the new ones. The F40 has a 0-60 in 3.2 seconds and the Enzo cant even do that. So overall i think the Enzo is an unbelivable car but i think it is over rated. F40 is underrated. I think the koenigsegg CCR is underrated maybe. Its out for the F1's title and had it for a short time until lossing it to the Veyron. I dont think Christian Koengsegg will take this and in true koengsegg fashion he will up the performance that much more. Thats the point of the CCR and i like that.

i think the silvia is not overated at all and deserves all the props it gets. The state side 240sx with a different non-turbo engine however is overated though still very nice. they are just not as great as the turbo silvias.

a lot of front wheel drives cars are underated. rsx and celica for example, they handle better than a lot of rwd cars out there. the type R integra and civic has been shown to outcorner the rx8 on BMI

rx8 is underated, it has a pretty bad reputation on other car forums because its slow. but people dont realize the overall balance of the car makes it one of the funnest sports car out there. power is important but isnt everything... 90% of the people dont go out and race their cars.. having fun should be more important than numbers. Beside the lack of torque, it is superior than most cars in its class for daily driving.

honda s2000 are extremely underated performers.

the 2007 v6 toyota camry will be underated, the 268hp engine will kick ass all over the place.

People need to understand it's OKAY for their car to not be a 'sports car' - 'sports car' is NOT the defining label which makes a car fun, or cool, or not.
:)

What it comes down to is being able to differentiate between different classes of sports cars. Obviously, an RSX isn't in the same class as a Ferrari 360. But people like to call their RSX a sports car, if nothing else to attempt to put it in the same class as the 360. I also think it is very narrow-minded to not call a car like an Evo, STi, or M5 a "sports car" just because it has 4 doors.

Personally, I like cars.com's subcategories for sports cars (although I do disagree where they place some of the cars): Sporty (more show than go), High Performance (a lot of go), and Exotic.

rsx isnt a sports car because its front wheel drive. its undoubtedly sporty - just not a sports car

What it comes down to is being able to differentiate between different classes of sports cars. Obviously, an RSX isn't in the same class as a Ferrari 360. But people like to call their RSX a sports car, if nothing else to attempt to put it in the same class as the 360. I also think it is very narrow-minded to not call a car like an Evo, STi, or M5 a "sports car" just because it has 4 doors.

Personally, I like cars.com's subcategories for sports cars (although I do disagree where they place some of the cars): Sporty (more show than go), High Performance (a lot of go), and Exotic.


but you act like I'm disrespecting the STI (if it's possible to disrespect a car) because I call it something 'other' than a sports car. Not the case. Just as humans come in different ethnicities, cars are different breeds.

Maybe it's just 'Sports Car is in the mind of the beholder'? I'll never consider a 4-door car a sports car because it's a 'sedan'. A Miata will ALWAYS be a sports car because it's sport, amazingly quick (in some contexts), very light, and FUN. The feeling one gets - well, the feeling I get in a miata is unlike any car I've owned; and both my current car (rx8) and my previous car (13-second Ford Probe GT) are a LOT faster in a straight line.

I think it's not so much about respecting or disrespecting a 'car' - but the car's owner. Often people want to FEEL better about themselves by calling their car a sports car. It's like a badge of honor to some people. Not insinuating you are like that; just sayin'.

:)

rsx (#) isnt a sports car (#) because its front wheel drive (#). its undoubtedly sporty - just not a sports carI totally agree

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call an RSX a sports car.

A friend of mine has a GTO and last night was calling it a sports car. I disagreed and told him it was a drag car. He asked what the Mustang was, and I told him it also was a drag car. Then explained that by my definition all I was implying was that when either was designed, straightline was probably more the priority than cornering.

As far as what a sports car is...I really don't care what definition you want to apply. A fast lap time around a track is a fast lap time.

As far as what a sports car is...I really don't care what definition you want to apply. A fast lap time around a track is a fast lap time.


And there are plenty of tracks where the GTO would turn faster lap times than an Rx8.

I think 'sports cars' aren't so much about measured tests, but 'feelings'.

:)

I definitley think that Supras are NOT overated, they are incredible! Stock they pull like .98g's on the skidpad! and run 13.1 Sec 1/4...STOCK! The stock bottom end is rated up-to 800hp...STOCK INTERNALS!

Rx-7 underated obviously for lower hp numbers, but it doesn't need as much hp to be just as fast as the others. So it is, to me although not Super Powerful, one of the greats.

I personally think the RX-7 and Supra were the greatest Japanese Super Powers.
________
CALIFORNIA DISPENSARY (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

well if you want to get technical, sports cars also have to be 2 door 2 seaters, coupe or roadster. rx8 isnt a sports car either. but why get so technical? sports car as is used to day is just a general term for performance cars.. they are all sports cars... unless you are just talking about sports cars in the purest sense like the s2k, 350z and vette etc, then rx8 dosnt qualify either. If rx8 is a sports car then so is mustang and GTO and rxs etc. :) no point getting so technical with the term

but you act like I'm disrespecting the STI (if it's possible to disrespect a car) because I call it something 'other' than a sports car. Not the case. Just as humans come in different ethnicities, cars are different breeds.

Maybe it's just 'Sports Car is in the mind of the beholder'? I'll never consider a 4-door car a sports car because it's a 'sedan'. A Miata will ALWAYS be a sports car because it's sport, amazingly quick (in some contexts), very light, and FUN. The feeling one gets - well, the feeling I get in a miata is unlike any car I've owned; and both my current car (rx8) and my previous car (13-second Ford Probe GT) are a LOT faster in a straight line.

I think it's not so much about respecting or disrespecting a 'car' - but the car's owner. Often people want to FEEL better about themselves by calling their car a sports car. It's like a badge of honor to some people. Not insinuating you are like that; just sayin'.

:)

I thought we were agreeing on everything, now it seems like arguing...

Anyway, my feeling is that the many of today's so-called sports cars have lost the "sport" part of it. It seems that any car that is 2 doors is now a sports car, regardless of performance.

Again, just for reference, I have an STi and an RX-8. These cars are in completely different categories. STi = more go than show = high performance sports car. RX-8 = more go than show = sporty 2 door (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this).

If you take a look at Zoom44's thread on UK "sports car" sales, he posted a pdf from smmt that should UK sales by segment. For passenger cars, there are 6 segments: Mini, Supermini, Lower Medium, Upper Medium, Executive, and Luxury. But, there is only one category for sports cars. IMO, just like they do for passenger cars, they should split the sports cars into different categories, for example: sporty 2 doors, high performance, and exotic. Just like you don't put a Mercedes S500 in the same class as a Hyundai Sonata, you don't put a Corvette in the same class as a Mini Cooper.

Eric, is a Miata a sports car?

RX-8 = more go than show = sporty 2 door (I'm sure I'll get flamed for this).



If you hadn't made that (edit:) typo I bet you would have ;)

To make myself clear - I'm trying to teach people to remove 'horsepower' or '1/4 mile' times/trap speeds from their definition of what constitutes a sports car.

:)

For the Record, some magazines have both the RX8 and MX5 rated at 70.x mph in their 700ft Slalom. Going by 'just the nubmers' the RX8 SHOULD be a sports car. I don't go by 'numbers' much, though.

MX5 = Sports Car
Sedans = Not sports cars.
RX8 = Not sure yet, but i'm leaning towards 'no'.
:)

:) you are crystal clear to me.

lots of others lean the other way dmp
it is most certainly a sports car

from http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comp...39/page003.html

If the RX-8 represents the future of the sports car, we can't wait to see what's next. The Z may be faster, but the Rx-8 is the better sportscar

consumer reports call it a sports car

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=44707&highlight=handles+sports

C&D
Verdict: if you are a sports car enthusiast who needs 4 seats your car has arrived.

his new RX-8, it embodies an unusual concept: the four-seat sports car.

It's easy to say four-seat sports car, but what does it mean? In this case, it means feeling light and nimble, turning in like a race car, and resisting roll in corners. It means splitting its mass 50/50 over the front and rear axles and crouching on an independent suspension all around, with rear toe-control links to keep the tail from wagging the dog.

some canadian news paper
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=74455&highlight=handles+sports

- Configuration: Four-passenger rear wheel drive sports car

netscape autos top 5 sportscars
http://channels.netscape.com/autos/gallery.jsp?gname=sport5cars&gproj=s&grurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.automobileforum.com%2Fforum s%2Findex.php%3Fact%3DST%26f%3D1%26t%3D5329%26s%3D 9da1d55407aa9e561f6bcee828be3f83&photo=1

Road and Track gets final say with a quote from its article entitled "Real sports cars arent supposed to have 4 doors. This one does.
http://www.rx8club.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1378&stc=1

I just use the term performance car a lot, makes life easier...

well there ya go- but that gets rid of the pigeon holes which make everyone so comfortable.

Eric, is a Miata a sports car?

I believe a Miata is in the "sporty" subcategory of sports cars. It is not in the "high performance" subcategory.

Here is a pretty good website that shows lap times at Hockenheim for different cars: http://www.track-challenge.com

The MX-5 is near the bottom as far as lap times go (1:24-1:25). It's lap times are in the same area as VW GTI, Mini Cooper S, Audi A3, Toyota MR2, MB C230, etc, behind the 1:20 of the RX-8, 1:17.9 of the 2.0L STi, 1:17.2 of the Evo VIII.

I'm only concerned what my insurance company calls them. And, my 8 is not called a sports car by them.

oh god now there are pigeon holes in the pigeon hole? lets divide it up furthur so there is only one car in each

Hahaha. Im glad the insurence company doesnt know what they are talking about.

I like the Wikipedia definition of "Sports car" (basically what dmp was saying):

A sports car is a type of automobile designed for sporting performance.

While opinions differ as to the exact definition, most sports cars have two seats and two doors, and are designed to provide excellent acceleration, top speed, and good looks.

When it comes to actual Sports car racing and the needs for braking, maneuverability, low weight, reliability etc., the philosophies differ. While some brands like Porsche always have built cars that are raced, others like Lamborghini never were intended nor suitable for competitions. Most current so-called sports cars have to be considered luxury cars, with many options and high weight, as few customers are willing to sacrifice comfort or noise deafening.

Great emphasis is often placed on handling—the ability of the driver to remain in control of the car under challenging conditions such as when the car's tires begin to lose their grip on corners.

A car may be sporting without being a sports car. Performance modifications of regular cars, such as muscle cars, hot hatches and the like do not generally fall in the pure sports car territory.

A large, powerful engine is not required; many of the early British sports cars lacked a powerful engine and did not accelerate as quickly as, say, muscle cars, but were known for having exceptional handling characteristics due to their combination of light weight, carefully engineered/balanced chassis and innovative suspension designs. Lotus is often cited as an example of this approach. On tight, twisting roads, such a car has higher effective performance than a heavier, more powerful car with less cornering ability.

In many situations, the term "sports car" is used to refer to any car with more power or performance than is typical for cars in general. Often vehicles in the muscle car, performance sedan/saloon or grand tourer (GT) category are referred to as sports cars even though they tend to lack the light weight and excellent handling characteristics of a true sports car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

So now if you take away the RX-8s "sports car" title for having more than 2 doors and more than 2 seats, you should take away the STI and EVO for not having "good looks" ;)

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the NSX. A lot of people on here will disagree with me, but I think the NSX is underrated. Like the RX-8, the NSX is no torque monster. This car is about balance. Sure, the current NSX is outdated by todays standards, but where else can you find near supercar performance with Honda drivability in the 90's?

Darin, there's something about which we can agree! Sports cars started with cars like the Morgan and the early MGs. Two seat roadsters. Personally, I wouldn't go a long way beyond that and still include it as a sports car, although there certainly are some hard-tops I'd call sports cars. But just because I don't think a particular car is a "sports car" is not to say that I think that it's not a cool car, or a very fun car to own and drive.

For instance, I was pleased to see a mention of the Toyota Celica GT4, which sold in this country as the Celica All-Trac. While I don't know that I'd call it a "sports car," they're really cool cars, and very strong. We didn't get the ST-205 version the rest of the world got (perhaps the 12 or so 1993 ST-185s that sold in the US convinced Toyota that the US was not the optimal market for those things), but there still are a few thousand ST-165s and ST-185s around. They're a PITA to keep working well, in part because previous owners often abused them, but they are very strong, and quite easy to build into real beasts.

Fun thread. :icon_tup:

Darin, there's something about which we can agree! Sports cars started with cars like the Morgan and the early MGs. Two seat roadsters. Personally, I wouldn't go a long way beyond that and still include it as a sports car, although there certainly are some hard-tops I'd call sports cars. But just because I don't think a particular car is a "sports car" is not to say that I think that it's not a cool car, or a very fun car to own and drive.

For instance, I was pleased to see a mention of the Toyota Celica GT4, which sold in this country as the Celica All-Trac. While I don't know that I'd call it a "sports car," they're really cool cars, and very strong. We didn't get the ST-205 version the rest of the world got (perhaps the 12 or so 1993 ST-185s that sold in the US convinced Toyota that the US was not the optimal market for those things), but there still are a few thousand ST-165s and ST-185s around. They're a PITA to keep working well, in part because previous owners often abused them, but they are very strong, and quite easy to build into real beasts.

Fun thread. :icon_tup:


On this issue and our like for Space and pictures and junk, we are one. Cept I'm fatter.

:)

I think Eric keys his definition of sports car on "horsepower." Guinness World Records, however, does not:

"Mazda Miata named best-selling sports car by Guinness World Records(TM); Mazda produces 600,000 MX-5 Miata Roadsters, breaks previous record"

;)


Sorry to repeat myself - People take too much pride in their car's label. How DARE you call my (insert car) ANYTHING but a sports-car. It's fast! It handles well! It's got a LOT of HP!

;)

Yeah, to me a sports car is all about how much fun it is to drive hard (and driving hard doesn't mean just driving fast). That has very little to do with power. Historically, in fact, sports cars were not powerful. My first car was a 1969 FIAT 124 Spider, with all of 95bhp (at a time when muscle cars were often well over 300bhp). But it was so much fun to find the twisty back roads and drive! Even legally. :) And, frankly, the more "practical" a car is, the farther it is from being a sports car, IMO.

The very idea that the Miata, perhaps the qunitessential modern interpretation of "sports car," isn't a sports car is pretty silly.

And I agree that it shouldn't matter what label someone puts on your car; if you enjoy your car, based on whatever criteria are important to you, that's all that should matter.

regular NSX is vastly overated to me. its slow and the handling is not that great for the price. they say the S2000 outhandles the type S easily. They get their ass kicked all over the place on the track in stock form by cheaper cars.

The NSX type R, now thats a different story. They call it the fastest JDM and it out paces many cars that cost almost 2x as much. some people get the regular NSX mixed up with the type R, and think all NSXs are like that.

Cars like the STI and Evo are really at their best below 100mph (160km/h).

I totally agree!

I agree AWD does lose alot of drivetrain drag.

The first 3 gears are unbeatable. The turbo in the STi was pretty much suited to lower gear driving. However, from fourth gear onwards... it kind of felt flat as you don't get that turbo rush feeling. This is in reference to MY01 Sti.

One thing to note is that when you mash the loud pedal to the floor while you are off boost... the car will take longer to spool up in boost as the PCM cuts fuel. The car just sits there and then starts going. You have to get used to gradually applying throttle pressure... to build boost. I don't know how the latest STis drive these days if you just mash the accelerator pedal to the floor while off boost.

^^^
Yes, but the S2000 is a newer car. I did say that the NSX is outdated by todays standards.

I totally agree!

I agree AWD does lose alot of drivetrain drag.

The first 3 gears are unbeatable. The turbo in the STi was pretty much suited to lower gear driving. However, from fourth gear onwards... it kind of felt flat as you don't get that turbo rush feeling. This is in reference to MY01 Sti.

One thing to note is that when you mash the loud pedal to the floor while you are off boost... the car will take longer to spool up in boost as the PCM cuts fuel. The car just sits there and then starts going. You have to get used to gradually applying throttle pressure... to build boost. I don't know how the latest STis drive these days if you just mash the accelerator pedal to the floor while off boost.

In the US the STI has very little lag due to it being a 2.5 and has a pretty impressive powerband so not a lot of downshifting is needed.

Lag will always be inevitable with a turbo car, that's why the Jap comes with the Spec C with better throttle response. With that much torque, its even possible to not shift down to maximize traction.

On a side note, dang, i was gone for about a day and was suprised of all the responses. I read through all of them and was pretty happy of all the responses!

Okae, back to the topic, the nsx hasn't changed in a decade, just the styling but the nsx is pretty much the same i stil believe. The price tag is wayy tooo high but kind of understandable if you ever saw the production of the car. I guess it was more of quality than quantity for that car because i know its all hand built. But yeah, the type r nsx is a crazy nice machine.

Anyways, i agree with yiksing, lag in inevitable on a turbo car, that why sequential twin turbos were created to try to reduce turbo lag. I feel like the imprezza 2.5rs (pre 99) are underrated, those cars are freaking great and would prefer them over the newer cars eventhough they aren't turbo'd.

Historically, in fact, sports cars were not powerful. My first car was a 1969 FIAT 124 Spider, with all of 95bhp (at a time when muscle cars were often well over 300bhp).

Back 40-50 years ago, things were much more cut and dried. On one hand, you had American Muscle; on the other, European sports cars (with the Covette somewhere in the middle). Today, we have 4-door, 4-cylinder, turbocharged, AWD vehicles that handle better than the Europeans and are faster in a straight line than most of the muscle cars.

The term "sports car" has evolved over the past 50 years. I'm just saying that it has evolved so much that it now encompasses a broad spectrum of vehicles, from a FWD, 4-cylinder $20K Honda Civic Si to an AWD, 1000hp, $1 million+ Bugatti Veyron. No doubt that the person with the Civic likes to call his car a sports car, if nothing else because of the implied connection with the Bugatti.

I think this thread has shown that the term "sports car" is now so completely muddled and broad that it really doesn't have any meaning.

So now if you take away the RX-8s "sports car" title for having more than 2 doors and more than 2 seats, you should take away the STI and EVO for not having "good looks"

I'm not interested in "taking the sports car" title away from anything. I'm just trying to show that there is too much that passes for a "sports car" these days, and that we could be better served by breaking down the sports car category. Besides, based on the definition you posted, that title would be taken away from the RX-8 and MX-5 because they lack excellent acceleration and top speed :p:

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the NSX. A lot of people on here will disagree with me, but I think the NSX is underrated. Like the RX-8, the NSX is no torque monster. This car is about balance. Sure, the current NSX is outdated by todays standards, but where else can you find near supercar performance with Honda drivability in the 90's?


i totally agree. i love the nsx. is it a bit pricey? sure. by the time it was ousted a year ago, there were many cheaper cars that could outhustle it.
But i love the look of it and when it came out there was nothing like it really.
it was a good pioneer of sorts and is one of the few japanese sports cars to have a 'exotic' style look....in my opinion.

that title would be taken away from the RX-8 and MX-5 because they lack excellent acceleration and top speed :p:


I've seen reviews showing RX8s and Miatas with acceleration equal to or better than the STi or Corvette or many other cars you deem 'sports cars' because of their HP.

:)

I've seen .91 for the MX5 - there aren't TOO many stock cars with that kinda acceleration.

The Skylines are underrated, but because they get so much rep from fans who has not really seen them in action they are seen as overrated. RBs are good for over 1000hp, not bad for 2.6 litre engines. 2JZ is good but only with the iron block.

The 350Z is not overrated, look at the starting price for them and the tuning you can do. You have to live under a rock to think they are. The VQ is one of the best if not the best selling engines out there, and because several models share the same design, turbo kits can be similarly applied. They do well on various tracks and exceptionally well winning races on the Japanese racing circuits.

The NSX is another underrated car. Fanboys just think this is the ultimate vtec machine, but it is more than that. It holds its own against exotcs even if they don't have character and big performance.

Other underrated cars that deserves mention are the MR2s, STR4s, Del Sols, MX5/Miatas, Suzuki Cappuccinos, 180sx and Trueno AE86 to name a few.

Overrated cars, no offense to the owners, are the ones with rotaries in them. The RX8 is incredibly overrated despite winning awards for best engines etc. I don't know any other award winning engines receiving the kind of negative feedbacks from consumers with regards to fuel economy and maintenance.

The RX7 has the chassis and weigh to be something great, only to have the worst reputation for reliability for a Japanese sports car.

I've seen reviews showing RX8s and Miatas with acceleration equal to or better than the STi or Corvette or many other cars you deem 'sports cars' because of their HP.

What da hell???????

Porsche 911, four seats, is it a sports car?
1989 lotus Elan, front wheel drive, so i guess someone should tell Lotus it's not a sports car. Boy will they be surprised.

The Skylines are underrated, but because they get so much rep from fans who has not really seen them in action they are seen as overrated. RBs are good for over 1000hp, not bad for 2.6 litre engines. 2JZ is good but only with the iron block.

The 350Z is not overrated, look at the starting price for them and the tuning you can do. You have to live under a rock to think they are. The VQ is one of the best if not the best selling engines out there, and because several models share the same design, turbo kits can be similarly applied. They do well on various tracks and exceptionally well winning races on the Japanese racing circuits.

The NSX is another underrated car. Fanboys just think this is the ultimate vtec machine, but it is more than that. It holds its own against exotcs even if they don't have character and big performance.

Other underrated cars that deserves mention are the MR2s, STR4s, Del Sols, MX5/Miatas, Suzuki Cappuccinos, 180sx and Trueno AE86 to name a few.
Overrated cars, no offense to the owners, are the ones with rotaries in them. The RX8 is incredibly overrated despite winning awards for best engines etc. I don't know any other award winning engines receiving the kind of negative feedbacks from consumers with regards to fuel economy and maintenance.

The RX7 has the chassis and weigh to be something great, only to have the worst reputation for reliability for a Japanese sports car.



What da hell???????
clone wtf, i have driven many cars and alot were faster off the line but i still get chills when i get in my car. overrated! why because you say I dont think so. If i need a little extra boost i just jump in my wifes car (05-s2k) and that gets old really quick. rx8 -not slow,not overpriced,and most important not a clone

What da hell???????JIC: Lateral....

I totally don't think the rx8 is overrated, hell the reason i have one is because of the first and only test drive(and i'm a sucker for black.) As for the NSX i was honestly looking on autotrader for a used one before i got the 8, one because of the history of the car, and two because in my small town of hamilton NJ, you will never see another one around here. But you will see tons of automatic corvettes, tons of 3 and 4 gen camaros and firebirds, and a whole bunch of 350Z(which i love.) I test drove 3 Z's before i bought my 8, but the 4 seater sealed the deal. Jumping back to the NSX, after doing some research a couple months ago, you could find a low mile, meaning not over 70,000, and decide condition 91 to 94 in the USA, and if you have a 91 there was a rear camber recall do to the rear tires trend disappear fast a hell, but it was the car of the year in 1991 according to car and driver.

i have new from a buddy of mine that works for ford that a new focus hatch is coming out with AWD and with the volvo inline 5 turbo motor giviing it 240 hp that will be 1 hell of a car

I saw the name of the thread and figured if we make it 2 pages without a debate on the definition of the word "sports car", I'll be amazed. Needless to say I'm not amazed.

As stated earlier, Wikipedia has a pretty good breakdown of the cars 90% of us are thinking of when we hear the word "sports car", whether the car actually is that specific type of car by definition or not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_car

For the sake of this discussion, let's expand it from "spots car" to "sporting car". By doing that we'll avoid additonal OT debate. We'll also be free to discuss grand touring cars like the Aston Martin DB9, Muscle Cars like the GTO, Hot Hatches like the Focus RS, Sport Compacts like the STi, and Sport Sedans like the BMW M5. Okay? :)

So back on topic...

Most underrated sporting car to me is the E30 M3. Many people who call themselves car enthusiasts think the E36 M3 and E46 M3 are the BMW compact coupes to have. No way. They are nice cars...no doubt...but nowhere as tossable, tunable and trackable as the E30 M3. It was very light, had perfect 50/50 weight distribution and low compression, bullet proof cast iron engine that took to aftermarket boost like white on rice. Its suspension is also known to take disgusting amounts of punishment on a track...something latter M3 models have never been able to claim. Much like the production STi's and Evo's of the early 90's, the E30 M3 was built to homogolate the M3 for proffesional GT racing. To this day it remains a tremendously underrated car with only limited cult like popularity in small amateur racing circles.

Hmmm...most overrated sporting car huh. I'm gonna have to nominate the VW R32. It's more of blue collar luxury car than a sports car to me. My friend bought an '04 for almost $35k and my ittle $20k SRT-4 could run circles around it with less about $1.8k in engine and suspension mods. Even my stock stereo was better. From a strictly performance-to-price perspective, the VW R32 gets my vote as the most overrated sporting car.

For the sake of this discussion, let's expand it from "spots car" to "sporting car". By doing that we'll avoid additonal OT debate. We'll also be free to discuss grand touring cars like the Aston Martin DB9, Muscle Cars like the GTO, Hot Hatches like the Focus RS, Sport Compacts like the STi, and Sport Sedans like the BMW M5. Okay? :)


How about "performance car" or is that too open? :dunno:

Racing cars = Any cars modded to extreme to win a race
Sports cars = A car that looks sporty (RICED up XXX)
A very fast car in the straight (Mustang, etc)
A slow car but fun to drive (Miata)

were would a RX8 fit in?

Underrated------- Mazda 323 Gtx and GTrhttp://www.rally.com.au/data/images/forsale/Palmer%202002%201.jpg

Not too many around and some are tuned north of 400whp.

Overrated-------Dodge stealth r/t and subaru svx

Nothing about these cars were good.

And an honorable mention goes to the 300zx tt(extremely overatted imo)

I agree with the E30, there were plenty of those in the 80s racing in Europe and Australia, just didn't think anyone here is old enough to remember.

Mazda GTR? Uh yeah but stock wise they are pretty slow, the slowest out of the EVO, STI and Pulsar GTiR.

Mazda GTR? Uh yeah but stock wise they are pretty slow, the slowest out of the EVO, STI and Pulsar GTiR.


I believe they came with 200+ hp stock, which was pretty good for a low 2000lb car in the early 90's :scratchhe

I believe they came with 200+ hp stock, which was pretty good for a low 2000lb car in the early 90's :scratchhe

If we're talking about the car in US form (GTX) it was only had 132hp and weighed 2645 lbs.

Even the Euro/Japan Spec cars (rated higher) ran to 60 in about 8 seconds. Since you said early 90s compare that to the DSM cars of the same time which would obliterate the GTX in a straight line. It was a pretty cool little car but how someone can call a tarted up Mercury Tracer underrated and not like the STI is beyond me ;) :sadwavey:

Also, the SVX pretty cool design IMO, it was also not a sportscar and was prettymuch the epitome of a GT car/Luxury Cruiser. Also to say nothing about the Stealth RT was good is a bit strong. They were damn fast for their time, still are (mid 13s in the 1/4), and handled fairly well considering their heft. I mentioned the 3000GT earlier so I'm not dismissing you calling it overrated, just think your stance is a little harsh.

If we're talking about the car in US form (GTX) it was only had 132hp and weighed 2645 lbs.

Even the Euro/Japan Spec cars (rated higher) ran to 60 in about 8 seconds. Since you said early 90s compare that to the DSM cars of the same time which would obliterate the GTX in a straight line. It was a pretty cool little car but how someone can call a tarted up Mercury Tracer underrated and not like the STI is beyond me ;) :sadwavey:

Also, the SVX pretty cool design IMO, it was also not a sportscar and was prettymuch the epitome of a GT car/Luxury Cruiser. Also to say nothing about the Stealth RT was good is a bit strong. They were damn fast for their time, still are (mid 13s in the 1/4), and handled fairly well considering their heft. I mentioned the 3000GT earlier so I'm not dismissing you calling it overrated, just think your stance is a little harsh.


I was talking about the GTR overseas and yes they arn't that fast stock but I've seen some crazy fast us spec 323's with that motor swap. I'm not that familier with them personally but I've seen hi 12 second passes and although that car was far from stock, it deserves some credit for potential. There's also a 10 second one floating around aswell. I enjoy seeing a junker like that keep up with a stock viper. Neways I just figured I'd throw that one out there.

My original pick was also the 2nd gen mr2 but you beat me to it. That mr2, rx7, corrado and the eclipse were definatly the cars to have back when I was 16. The svx could have been a sweet car if it came in manual and turbo. Subaru would of had a real winner there. My dad had the stealth r/t and it wasn't slow but it didn't feel 13 second fast to me. It's a heavy ass tank and the tranny must have been developed in palestine. It blew up twice within 60k.


btw, I never compared the eclipse to the GTR Familia. one's a 2.0L and the other 1.6L-1.8L. Different classes. FYI, The eclipse was too busy playing catch up to the rx7 back then. :sadwavey:

I was talking about the GTR overseas and yes they arn't that fast stock but I've seen some crazy fast us spec 323's with that motor swap. I'm not that familier with them personally but I've seen hi 12 second passes and although that car was far from stock, it deserves some credit for potential. There's also a 10 second one floating around aswell. I enjoy seeing a junker like that keep up with a stock viper. Neways I just figured I'd throw that one out there.

My original pick was also the 2nd gen mr2 but you beat me to it. That mr2, rx7, corrado and the eclipse were definatly the cars to have back when I was 16. The svx could have been a sweet car if it came in manual and turbo. Subaru would of had a real winner there. My dad had the stealth r/t and it wasn't slow but it didn't feel 13 second fast to me. It's a heavy ass tank and the tranny must have been developed in palestine. It blew up twice within 60k.


btw, I never compared the eclipse to the GTR Familia. one's a 2.0L and the other 1.6L-1.8L. Different classes. FYI, The eclipse was too busy playing catch up to the rx7 back then. :sadwavey:


Think of the SVX more along the lines of the SC300 and SC400. Problem is it came out in an era where it was being pitted against the Supra, FD, 3000GT/Stealth R/T, and 300ZT. It just wasn't meant to be a car like those, but magazines and consumers didn't really have anything else to compare it to. It would have been nice if it was offered in a MT, but a turbo would have ruined what Subaru was trying to achieve with that car. What they achieved wasn't spectacular, but I sure loved seeing them on the roads, and still do.

I only mentioned the DSM because they made the 323 GTX look pretty unimpressive in the early 90s. They made a lot of cars look that way and are still to this day one of the best performance bargains ever.

were would a RX8 fit in?

Probably fits in the slow fun car category

Think of the SVX more along the lines of the SC300 and SC400. Problem is it came out in an era where it was being pitted against the Supra, FD, 3000GT/Stealth R/T, and 300ZT. It just wasn't meant to be a car like those, but magazines and consumers didn't really have anything else to compare it to. It would have been nice if it was offered in a MT, but a turbo would have ruined what Subaru was trying to achieve with that car. What they achieved wasn't spectacular, but I sure loved seeing them on the roads, and still do.

I only mentioned the DSM because they made the 323 GTX look pretty unimpressive in the early 90s. They made a lot of cars look that way and are still to this day one of the best performance bargains ever.


Yeah, the svx was definatly at the wrong place at the wrong time. I think if they should of at least had a manual option for it. There was just wayy too much competition back then. For the record, I actually liked the way the windows looked.

I think you are confusing the gtx with the gtr. The gtx was pre 1990 with 135hp and the gtr was only available overseas with a 210 hp 1.8 between 1991-94. Now I'll be the first to admit that mazdas awd system back then sucked balls and lost a lot of power to the wheels because of it. Thing is, it is a sweet swap for a base 323 fwd over here. I still give mazda props for making such a car back then. I mean it was a hatch back with 210 hp awd.

Both the rx and eclipse have gone soft these days. It really sucks that the older models were so much faster then now. I know mazdas reasoning for the 8 but the eclipse could still be a beast if mitsu wanted it to. Instead, it has morphed into a strickly girls car. DSM has everything for the evo now and they could easily give the eclipse some evo parts. I guess I'm still stuck in the 90's where sport cars were low, 2 door and fast as hell. Now, the fastest cars are econo box ones unless you want to spend 50+.

I hate the whole drifting craze. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an okay sport, but all I hear from people when they see I own a 240SX is "when are you gonna take me drifting?" It's NOT a drift car! :icon_no2: But, it is a good all around performer that gets decent gas mileage (25/28) and has a large trunk.

The best aspect of the 240SX is the car’s handling. With springs, struts, and sway bars the car sticks to the road like glue. I cannot believe how well my 15 year old car handles, even compared to modern sports cars. The 240SX shared the same IRS with the 300ZX and Skyline. They could also be purchased with a limited-slip and AWS. Also, most "import" people make fun of the 240SX for having a large stroke motor shared with the Altima, Stanza, and Hardbody Pickup / Frontier. I think the motor is great. It may not have much after 5500 rpm, but it has a strong, flat torque curve and is reliable as a motor can get.

240SX = underrated as a true sports car

the stock engine in the 240sx is a very good engine, but it is in the end a 2.4L truck engine. A simple swap with a japanese silvia sr20det (same engine mounts) will completely reinvent that car. You can find some S13,S14, and S15 engines with trannys for low $2000.

I hate the whole drifting craze. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an okay sport, but all I hear from people when they see I own a 240SX is "when are you gonna take me drifting?" It's NOT a drift car! :icon_no2: But, it is a good all around performer that gets decent gas mileage (25/28) and has a large trunk.

The best aspect of the 240SX is the car’s handling. With springs, struts, and sway bars the car sticks to the road like glue. I cannot believe how well my 15 year old car handles, even compared to modern sports cars. The 240SX shared the same IRS with the 300ZX and Skyline. They could also be purchased with a limited-slip and AWS. Also, most "import" people make fun of the 240SX for having a large stroke motor shared with the Altima, Stanza, and Hardbody Pickup / Frontier. I think the motor is great. It may not have much after 5500 rpm, but it has a strong, flat torque curve and is reliable as a motor can get.

240SX = underrated as a true sports car

I just didn't like the stock motor in the USDM cars, the car was too heavy and it had too little umph, but I sure liked the looks of the car at the time. Without a motor swap they're just blah, I guess I'm too much of a speed freak. Also, if I ever have to swap a engine into something it sure as hell isn't going to be an engine that should have been in the damn car in the first place.

I just didn't like the stock motor in the USDM cars, the car was too heavy and it had too little umph, but I sure liked the looks of the car at the time. Without a motor swap they're just blah, I guess I'm too much of a speed freak. Also, if I ever have to swap a engine into something it sure as hell isn't going to be an engine that should have been in the damn car in the first place.
I would like some more power, but you can't argue with the low end torque of the motor (which is something that no other Japanese sports car really has). Plus, the motor responses decent to bolt-ons and will take about 8 psi of boost without having to change the fuel system or any internals. I don't think the weight is that bad at 2850 lbs. Honestly, when I drive my friends 1993 300ZX it feels like a tank compared to my 240SX.

The 240SX is far from perfect, but it's fantastic for the money (new or used).


Oh, and a big :icon_tup: for the SVX.

I Love Hundai !!!!

I Love Kia !!!!

I Love Neon !!!!

Yay !

anyone who says an rx8 is a sports car but a GTO is not. Has obviously never been in one.

And for the argument that FWD cars are not sport cars, if a Z06 were to be FWD, what would you call it?. Just a hypothetical question

anyone who says an rx8 is a sports car but a GTO is not. Has obviously never been in one.

And for the argument that FWD cars are not sport cars, if a Z06 were to be FWD, what would you call it?. Just a hypothetical questionThis has all been covered. Got any nominees? :kiss:

Any car you can go reasonably fast in and have fun, nice handling is a sports car.

heres a reasonable proposition.

we just stop defining "sports car" because i have the entire table laid out below. for our intents and purposes, this thread regards "performance cars" meaning any car that was made for higher performance. whether it be from the get go(ie rx7 or 911) or from regular chassis with changed drivetrains and suspensions(like the focus RS or lancer evolution)

performance cars(by stealth fox)

1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)

examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3

2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars

examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si

3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects

examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3

4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans

examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4

5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for shit and are heavy

examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc



i think with that 5 section system you can classify every performance car properly.

hmm.. so anyways..


:boring:

overrated and underrated..

1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)

examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3


The pure sports car IMO is the sort of vehicle that compromises comfort and all the convenience of a transport machine for performance in speed, handling and entertainment. It has no automatic transmission (counts out the RX7 and NSX), nor is it front wheel or all wheel driven. It has no back seats either. This counts out the RX7, 911, 240sx, alfas (not sure about corvettes) as they all accomodate back seats. It has no technical assistance such as power steering or even air conditioning. The Ariel Atom comes to mind, then you have the Ferraris, Lambos and so on.

2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars

examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si


Doesn't have to be FWD. This should also include the Skyline, GTO, M3, basically 2 door versions of their 4 door counterparts hence the term "coupe".


3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects

examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3

Agreed with most except the G35c and M3. Grand tourers need not be heavy, just not designed for autoX. Included should be the VR4/GTO, 300ZX, NSX, RX7 etc.


4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans

examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4

Agreed.


5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for shit and are heavy

examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc

I think the GTO can handle, it is actually a sports coupe (basically a 2 door version of the Holden Commodore from Australia).

How about the Lotus Elan M100. A FWD from the early 1990's that didn't handle like one and did 0-60 under 6 sec. with a 4 cylinder. Not the best Lotus, but impressive for the time.

The pure sports car IMO is the sort of vehicle that compromises comfort and all the convenience of a transport machine for performance in speed, handling and entertainment. It has no automatic transmission (counts out the RX7 and NSX), nor is it front wheel or all wheel driven. It has no back seats either. This counts out the RX7, 911, 240sx, alfas (not sure about corvettes) as they all accomodate back seats. It has no technical assistance such as power steering or even air conditioning. The Ariel Atom comes to mind, then you have the Ferraris, Lambos and so on.



Doesn't have to be FWD. This should also include the Skyline, GTO, M3, basically 2 door versions of their 4 door counterparts hence the term "coupe".




Agreed with most except the G35c and M3. Grand tourers need not be heavy, just not designed for autoX. Included should be the VR4/GTO, 300ZX, NSX, RX7 etc.




Agreed.




I think the GTO can handle, it is actually a sports coupe (basically a 2 door version of the Holden Commodore from Australia).


too many opinions to discuss but ill agree with you the holden vtx or whatever the hgih end one is a great handling car its just that compared to a real sports car like an rx7, its just a blowout, it weighs 1000 pounds more than the typical sports car and it got more r&d in that big ass engine than in suspension

The 8 is overated.

The 8 is overated.

maybe on this forum but no where else in the world

Here's my take...

I've owned a 330ci and 2 E46 M3s before I got the 8. In stock form, the 8 handles better than the BMWs since it's lighter. Downside? it's really lack of torque (acceptable from a high rev NA rotary engine).

Is the 8 overrated? Not at all. At its price range it's an amazing sport car. It has the nicest interior (luxury side) and better balanced suspension compare with other sport cars at its price range imho.

My brother has an EVO 9 MR and my co-worker got an STi and I drive them regularly, both cars are faster then the 8 (no shit) but I still prefer my 8 due to the overall rating (handling, interior, styling - to each of his/her own,)

But seriously, I'd pay $10k more on the 8 if it had 50+ more hp or 300lbs lighter from the FACTORY.

spend 7k and you'll get a hell of a lot more than 50hp boosting

Yea I know. But the extra boost is not covered by the factory warranty. See if the 8 got 280-300hp (NA or FI) w/ the same weight at 3000lbs from Mazda, I really don't mind paying the extra $10k (if they had one).

in a couple of years nothing will be covered by the factory warranty(hence a lot of people waiting for their warranties to expire)

Nice posts guys. I only have one problem. I'm allowed to express this opinion though since I own one. The STI is not a sports car, it's a rally inspired modified version of an economy sedan. Yes it's very fast, so I suppose people will call it one, but there's no way I can look at that car and call it a sports car. Now the S2000, and RX8, those are sports cars, if for no other reason because they are originally formed cars built from ground up, not modified versions of economy cars. Not to mention they have the looks and refinement, and define a true sports car. That is all. ;)

Nice posts guys. I only have one problem. I'm allowed to express this opinion though since I own one. The STI is not a sports car, it's a rally inspired modified version of an economy sedan. Yes it's very fast, so I suppose people will call it one, but there's no way I can look at that car and call it a sports car. Now the S2000, and RX8, those are sports cars, if for no other reason because they are originally formed cars built from ground up, not modified versions of economy cars. Not to mention they have the looks and refinement, and define a true sports car. That is all. ;)

Think about the root words of sportscar for a bit. Now try to tell me the STI and Evo aren't the most sporting cars in their pricerange on the road today. The days of a sportscar having to look a certain way and have a certain amount of seats is long gone IMO. It was stupid to ever have a such a term based so strongly on looks and number of seats in the first place.

Think about the root words of sportscar for a bit. Now try to tell me the STI and Evo aren't the most sporting cars in their pricerange on the road today. The days of a sportscar having to look a certain way and have a certain amount of seats is long gone IMO. It was stupid to ever have a such a term based so strongly on looks and number of seats in the first place.

It's all subjective man. I personally judge the term based on originality. Make the STI a pure original car built from scratch with it's own distinct look and design, and I won't disagree with those who call it a sports car. I just cannot grasp modifying economy based cars to perform like this, and calling them sports cars. Again, it's a subjective opinion, and there is no right or wrong. They are cars that need to be driven daily, and used to their fullest potential. I don't worry about getting a scratch on mine, park it away from other cars so it doesn't get dinged, ect ect. I let mine get dirty as hell before even washing it. It's an Impreza after all. It just happens to have a great pile of high performing, expensive, technilogical parts on it that make it a true performer. When they fail many years from now, strip them for parts, and call the junkyard to take the rest away, just like you would a base model Impreza. They need to make the EVO and STI a separate 2 door coupe built from the ground up, refine it a bit, and give it it's own distinct individual look, and then I'll call it a sports car. :)

Nice posts guys. I only have one problem. I'm allowed to express this opinion though since I own one. The STI is not a sports car, it's a rally inspired modified version of an economy sedan. Yes it's very fast, so I suppose people will call it one, but there's no way I can look at that car and call it a sports car. Now the S2000, and RX8, those are sports cars, if for no other reason because they are originally formed cars built from ground up, not modified versions of economy cars. Not to mention they have the looks and refinement, and define a true sports car. That is all. ;)

in other words, he paraphrased one of my earlier posts :aroused:

+1 for good logic, if its chassis wasnt originally designed for sporting purposes(lancer, or impreza) then its not a sports car. i'll go get a civic, and modify it beyond performance capabilities of an STi and no one will call it a sports car, so why should the sti and evo be called sportscars? thats all they are, is economy cars with extensively modified body panels, suspensions, drivetrains, and engines

A STI can smoke an 8 or S2000 meaning its a car that smokes another sports car, so what do you call a car faster than a sports car?

You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.

A STI can smoke an 8 or S2000 meaning its a car that smokes another sports car, so what do you call a car faster than a sports car?Kind of depends on the venue, doesn't it. Take a look at nationals in autocross last year and tell me that the STi will smoke the S2000 in autocross. Or not.

Who cares whether someone calls a particular car a "sports car?" Who cares what label anyone puts on your car? Do you like your car? Does anything else matter?

Sheesh....

in other words, he paraphrased one of my earlier posts :aroused:

+1 for good logic, if its chassis wasnt originally designed for sporting purposes(lancer, or impreza) then its not a sports car. i'll go get a civic, and modify it beyond performance capabilities of an STi and no one will call it a sports car, so why should the sti and evo be called sportscars? thats all they are, is economy cars with extensively modified body panels, suspensions, drivetrains, and enginesThat's simply wrong. Versus the base model Lancer, the current CT9A chassis first seen in the Evo VII boasted 50% more flexural rigidity as a result of thicker sheetmetal and bracing in high-load regions, seam-welding in the B-pillars and front chassis section, and more than 200 additional spot welds in the door apertures. In each successive Evo model (VIII & IX) built on the CT9A chassis, structural rigidity has increased even more! It's to the point now that converting an '06 Evolution IX RS to a bonafied rally car requires very little besides the additon of a roll cage. Like them or not, there's no debating these cars are built like a tank.

Here's a little history of the Evo if you care...

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0304scc_lancerevo/

And here's a little history on the Impreza WRX STi...

http://www.scoobyphotos.com/impreza_history.php

Here's a website that details all that's involved with converting a showroom STi into a rally car - complete with pictures!

http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servlet/CarBuilding?part=1&page=1

What you have here are two very partial sides facing off. I'll be fair in saying that the EVO and STI are their own separate breed, and define their own version of a sports car, for the simple fact that they perform so well, and so much time ane energy have gone into their performance, and build. Can I treat my STI like my S2000, by garaging it, waxing it all the time, parking away from shopping carts at grocery store, ect ect? HELL NO. It's purpose for me is to get me to work, and around town, yet with awesome performance. I simply do not treat this car any differently then if I were to have purchased a base model Impreza. Does that mean the car is not special? No, it just means I choose to look at this car for what I see it to be, which is a fast Impreza. Seeing a 60 year old woman driving a slow, lackluster performing Impreza RS that looks exactly like my car, but cost $14 grand less, is the reason why this will never be a sports car to me. If they take a Honda S2000, slap a base model civic engine in it, give it cloth seats, manual top, smaller rims, softer suspension, ect ect, that car will lose it's purity, and be in a lower class then it is now. Don't get me wrong. I am so glad Subaru built this STI, and I love this car, but not to an enthusiast standpoint. This is a car you buy to use, not to show off. There's nothing better then having a daily driver that performs this well, while being reliable, and you can treat it like a regular car. It's truly awesome to be able to buy an economy car off the showroom that drives like this. Hey, we all have our own personalities, and no one is wrong here. :)

im going to have to both agree but maintain my general statment, because i highly respect you and your knowledge.

while you may say the chassis and stuff has been reinforced and improved, you're essentially saying that the chassis was modified from its original primary design(for a regular 4 door sedan) for sporting purposes starting with the second EVO in 1994(i believe that was the release year of the second evolution). This is exactly what i am trying to say, the cars ARE imprezas and lancers, yes, i agree they are so highly modified and changed from the orignals they bear no real performance simularities just aesthetics and some interior and exterior "inspiration", but when it comes down to it though, they didn't design the lancer and the impreza to be sold primarily in evolution and wrx forms, but as regular economy grocery getters and then changing the car to be like its racecar counterpart for ultra high performance. and back to my original statement, because these cars were not designed from the beginning to be sports cars, they are not sportscars. while they maintain very little in common with their base model counterparts and because they are essentially reworked and rebuilt for sporting purposes and not initally designed for it, then they are not sports cars, instead just high performance sedans.


That's simply wrong. Versus the base model Lancer, the current CT9A chassis first seen in the Evo VII boasted 50% more flexural rigidity as a result of thicker sheetmetal and bracing in high-load regions, seam-welding in the B-pillars and front chassis section, and more than 200 additional spot welds in the door apertures. In each successive Evo model (VIII & IX) built on the CT9A chassis, structural rigidity has increased even more! It's to the point now that converting an '06 Evolution IX RS to a bonafied rally car requires very little besides the additon of a roll cage. Like them or not, there's no debating these cars are built like a tank.

Here's a little history of the Evo if you care...

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0304scc_lancerevo/

And here's a little history on the Impreza WRX STi...

http://www.scoobyphotos.com/impreza_history.php


Here's a website that details all that's involved with converting a showroom STi into a rally car - complete with pictures!

http://rally.subaru.com/rally/servlet/CarBuilding?part=1&page=1

heres a reasonable proposition.

we just stop defining "sports car" because i have the entire table laid out below. for our intents and purposes, this thread regards "performance cars" meaning any car that was made for higher performance. whether it be from the get go(ie rx7 or 911) or from regular chassis with changed drivetrains and suspensions(like the focus RS or lancer evolution)

performance cars(by stealth fox)

1. Sports cars-in the pure form a sports car is a car originally designed for the intent of sporting and SOLEY sporting and are low to the ground, relatively compact in size, light in weight, commonly convertables and have highly performance oriented suspensions AND REAR WHEEL DRIVE, NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL (and can include things like rear seats)

examples- mazda rx-7, porsche 911, toyota mr2, lotus elise, nissan 240sx, s2000, 350z, corvette, the older fiats and alfa romeros, miatas
not examples-impreza wrx, integra type R, skyline GTR, bmw m3

2. sport coupes- front wheel cars made to be sporty or high performance versions of regular cars

examples-integra type r, acura rsx, toyota celica, nissan sentra se-r, civic Si

3. grand touring cars-larger heavier, typically more luxury oriented cars(not necessary though) that have high performance aspects

examples-mazda rx8, aston martin db9, infiniti g35, ferrari maranello, bmw m3

4. performance sedans-performance versions of regular sedans

examples-bmw m5, evo, sti, audi s4

5. muscle cars-american made high torque fast as hell v8 cars that can't handle for shit and are heavy

examples-mustang, gto, trans am, camaro, etc



i think with that 5 section system you can classify every performance car properly.


you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it

you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Haha, that's great! Where are you getting your information from?
The GTO weighs 3700+ lbs and understeers like a pig. It can't handle worth crap. The only STi/GTO comparison that I know of was done by edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=105773/pageId=63961

Some choices quotes:

Big tires, rear-wheel drive and a fully independent suspension can only do so much when they're trying to herd in 3,725 pounds of sheet metal. At moderate speeds the big Goat is stable enough, but push harder and its limitations aren't hard to find.

Driven back-to-back with the Subaru, the GTO feels massive, with slow turn-in and excessive body roll. With no stability control to rein you in, the GTO will happily progress to easily controllable oversteer which can be fun provided you have the room to play. Wide pedal spacing makes heel-and-toe downshifting nearly impossible, and the brakes never feel strong enough despite a switch to larger rotors, calipers and pads for 2005.

Slalom testing confirmed the GTO's clumsiness as it rumbled through the cones at a leisurely 60 mph. The STi knifed through it at 66.7 mph, a Toyota Camry Solara can do it at 60.9 mph.


On paper, the GTO looked tough to beat. A 400-hp small-block V8, six-speed manual, rear-wheel drive — what more do you need? But the more we drove these cars on the edge, the more we realized that the STi was the real deal. It held its own on the drag strip and flat-out smoked the GTO through the slalom. Plus its backseats come with doors. On the street, more than one editor noted that when it comes to raw, unfiltered feel, it's the Subaru that delivers over the more refined GTO. Add in the STi's higher-quality interior and usable trunk and it's the Subaru that gets our $33K.

you cant say muscel cars cant handle. When they (GTO) run better track times than an STI and not to mention an rx-8. Obviosuly the power is the main factor, but handling is a big part of it

Yeah... I was willing to back you up that the GTO handles fairly well, but you've lost it now. A GTO is not taking a STI around any track unless the STI driver is awful.

here you go. BTW for the people that dnt know, that is the GTO, in australian styling. The vauxhall monaro. Very few changes such as badging and body styling were cahnged before imported to the US.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...849&q=top+gear

Look at the time postings at the very end. And I doubt that guy is an awful driver.

we know what monaros are. you're not brining anything new to the table. i'll hand it to you yes, the GTO handles ok for a muscle car, but compared to a real sportscar its just another pig.

Are you seriously still arguing that the GTO handles well? Get a clue. You watch one video of a guy doing one lap on one course and you somehow jump to the conclusion that the GTO handles well?

The GTO is a pig and handles like one.

hahaha, so you mean those results meant nothing? I will absolutely admit with no problem with the STi handles much better than a GTO, It was designed to. But you are just trying to convince yourself that it does nto even come close, when in fact, you are overating the Sti's abilities.

and btw, I have never seen a "pig" car, achieve the same results in a track timing as an STi, even if it was for one lap

The GTO is usually rated at .84-.86 on the skidpad. I guess that's not too bad. But an Sti will blister its ass through a slalom, and is not far off in acceleration. All-wheel drive and a tight suspension add up to way better handling than the GTO. I say that lap was a fluke, and given identical tracks, same driver, the Sti will dust the GTO's times. The video wouldn't play, so I'm just assuming his car was stock. Who drove the Sti? Did they show a video of that lap as well? What exactly is being compared here?

The GTO is usually rated at .84-.86 on the skidpad. I guess that's not too bad. But an Sti will blister its ass through a slalom, and is not far off in acceleration. All-wheel drive and a tight suspension add up to way better handling than the GTO. I say that lap was a fluke, and given identical tracks, same driver, the Sti will dust the GTO's times. The video wouldn't play, so I'm just assuming his car was stock. Who drove the Sti? Did they show a video of that lap as well? What exactly is being compared here?

Yeah, her video link doesn't work, but you can find it on google.
They showed the GTO doing one lap in a made-for-TV effort. So, you don't really see the full lap or even know if the clips are put together from a bunch of different laps. At the end, they go their board where they have a list of times for a bunch of cars they tested and the the GTO had the same time as an STi that they drove on a different day in different conditions. So based on that, she somehow comes to the conclusion that the GTO handles good. No one drove the STi on this occasion.

Also note that, since this is Top Gear from the UK, the STi is not the USDM STi with the 2.5L, 300 hp, 300 ft/lb torque. It is the version with the 2.0L engine that puts out 276 horsepower. So, even though the GTO has twice the cylinders, 3x the displacement, and 125 more hp, it still can't beat a Subaru.

RX8>GTO>Chevette v8>evo/sti

RX8 > GTO > Ferrari Enzo > Porsche Carrera GT > SLR McLaren > Lamborghini Murcielago >Chevette v8>evo/sti

Fixed: You forgot some

lol, thats so tru!!! the rx8 is t3h pwnz0r!!111

Also note that, since this is Top Gear from the UK, the STi is not the USDM STi with the 2.5L, 300 hp, 300 ft/lb torque. It is the version with the 2.0L engine that puts out 276 horsepower. So, even though the GTO has twice the cylinders, 3x the displacement, and 125 more hp, it still can't beat a Subaru.Well you can throw that argument out the window. The 2.0L turbo in the Japanese and European STI puts down more power than the 2.5L turbo in the US version of the same car. In fact it's a pretty significant margin. The "276hp" rating goes all the way back to the early 90's when Japanese manufacturer's made a gentlemen's agreement with Japanese law enforcement not to exceed those numbers. It eventually became a joke because of cars like the Evo, STi, Skyline and Supra who were putting down more than 276hp to the wheels but still advertised "276hp" on the window sticker.

A few weeks ago a local STI/EVO tuner I take my car to got their hands on a JDM spec EJ20 right out of an '01 JDM STI. Even though it wasn't tuned for crappy 91 octane, it put down an additional 30whp over the average EJ25 in the USDM STI. The guys at the shop were blown away. It's a stronger head, with stronger internals and a bigger turbocharger. You can thank the smog NAZI'S for that. I thank them for 91 octane everyday with my high-flow cat. :)

Well you can throw that argument out the window. The 2.0L turbo in the Japanese and European STI puts down more power than the 2.5L turbo in the US version of the same car. In fact it's a pretty significant margin. The "276hp" rating goes all the way back to the early 90's when Japanese manufacturer's made a gentlemen's agreement with Japanese law enforcement not to exceed those numbers. It eventually became a joke because of cars like the Evo, STi, Skyline and Supra who were putting down more than 276hp to the wheels but still advertised "276hp" on the window sticker.

A few weeks ago a local STI/EVO tuner I take my car to got their hands on a JDM spec EJ20 right out of an '01 JDM STI. Even though it wasn't tuned for crappy 91 octane, it put down an additional 30whp over the average EJ25 in the USDM STI. The guys at the shop were blown away. It's a stronger head, with stronger internals and a bigger turbocharger. You can thank the smog NAZI'S for that. I thank them for 91 octane everyday with my high-flow cat. :)

Then by that argument, the S204 must be putting down over 400 hp since they rate it at 320. The engine may be underrated, but not by that much. They still have to have some semblance of accuracy when it comes to rating the horsepower. Are you sure that the engine you are talking about isn't from one of the special versions, or even a Type RA spec C?

Here's the peak hp/tq rating for all STi versions:

STi Version - 238/224
STi Version II - 258/228
STi Version III - 278/242
STi Version IV - 278/242
STi Version V - 278/250
STi Version VI - 278/250
New Age STi - 278/275
USDM STi - 300/300
22B - 278/268
UK300 - 218/215
P1 - 278/253
RB5 - 218/214
555 - 208/214
Series McRae - 208/214
Cataluyna - 208/214
Terzo - 208/214
S201 - 300/260
S202 - 315/283
S203 - 320/311
S204 - 320/318

While

You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.

They may be clueless but you are not Mr. Accurate either.

Up to 1986 group B specs ruled the World Rally Championship. Cars like the Lancia 037, Stratos, S4 and Peugeot 205 turbo 16 competed. This cars were designed as rally cars and THEN had their road version launched. A short number of them were made to be able to homologate the rally car.

Some of them were just prototypes with huge turbos (the s4 had an additional supercharger). In the early eighties 4wd was also introduced.

Some group B cars had in excess of 600 hp, the Lancia delta s4 could qualify for a formula 1 race back in its time.

In 1.986, Lancia driver Henri Toivonen and co-driver Sergio Cresto died in an accident in Rally Corsica. This event, among several spectator deaths triggered a change in FIA regulations and group A cars were born.

Group A cars MUST be based on mass produced cars. Mitsubishi Galant and Lancer, Subaru Legacy and Impreza, Toyota Celica GT4, Mazda 323 GTR, Lancia Delta... all those were Group A. Group A ruled until the late nineties.

WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.

The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing :) ) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.

RX8 is overrated...great car, but needs more power to be special.

Underrated- all the RWD Celicas.

1st gen RX7's are underrated

Overrated...any FWD "Sports" car

WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.

The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing :) ) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.

WRC rules stipulate that the that every WRC car must originate from a mass produced (at least 25,000 built) car.

Sebastian Loeb won in 2004 and 2005 in a Citroen Xsara. Petter Solberg won in 2003 in a Subaru Impreza WRX STi and was runner-up in 2004 and 2005. Loeb is described as the Michael Schumacher of the WRC. He is just an incredible driver. Put him in a Subaru, and he still wins.

Overrated...any FWD "Sports" car
Riggghhhttttt.

Riggghhhttttt.



They suck

WRC rules stipulate that the that every WRC car must originate from a mass produced (at least 25,000 built) car.

Sebastian Loeb won in 2004 and 2005 in a Citroen Xsara. Petter Solberg won in 2003 in a Subaru Impreza WRX STi and was runner-up in 2004 and 2005. Loeb is described as the Michael Schumacher of the WRC. He is just an incredible driver. Put him in a Subaru, and he still wins.

You're forgetting Marcus Gronholm and his two titles in a PEUGEOT. Just take a look at the WRC this year. Mistubishi has withdrawn from it and official team Subaru is not able to beat semi official Citroens and Peugeots????

Then it's all the driver, not the car :)

All the WRCs are BASED on normal production cars. 20 years ago, rally cars put the spirit in production cars, nowadays it all went backwards. FIA rules determine it.

If a great driver on an AWD boosted econobox is able to beat the "supposed" rally beasts then it's all about the driver, as a matter of fact the xara has outperformed its competition. Where's the "rally heritage" in subaru and mitsubishi showing?. Gronholm and Solberg are extremely awesome drivers too, both former world champions.

Rally-derived cars are extremely efficient cars, but I wouldnt put them under "sports cars"

I own an Impreza turbo, I know what it is. It's a boosted saloon, with questionable looks, awesome traction and average handling. It makes poor drivers look great, it's so forgiving. But it also takes away some of the fun factor, it feels a lot like gran turismo for playstation to me.

They suck Then you obviously don't know anything about FWD sport coupes/sedans. Don't discount them because they are FWD.

Well, you know that POS Mazdaspeed Protege is overrated and sucks, because its FWD, pulls .88+ on skidpad and slalom speed over 70mph. What am I thinking.

It completly sucked when I ran quicker times at the autox vs an experienced 8 driver on several occasions.

If a great driver on an AWD boosted econobox is able to beat the "supposed" rally beasts then it's all about the driver, as a matter of fact the xara has outperformed its competition. Where's the "rally heritage" in subaru and mitsubishi showing?.

I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at with your posts. Comparing the STi/Evo to their rally counterparts is like comparing the Ford Thunderbird/Taurus/Fusion and the Dodge Stratus (or whatever they are using now) to their NASCAR counterparts.

All WRC cars are built the same...the manufacturer ships out a car - all Subarus go to Prodrive - for a complete rebuild. Prodrive will strip the Subaru down to the bare chassis and build the car from the bottom up - at a cost of over $500,000.


Rally-derived cars are extremely efficient cars, but I wouldnt put them under "sports cars"

I agree. They are high performance vehicles, while the RX-8 is a sporty coupe.


I own an Impreza turbo, I know what it is. It's a boosted saloon, with questionable looks, awesome traction and average handling. It makes poor drivers look great, it's so forgiving. But it also takes away some of the fun factor, it feels a lot like gran turismo for playstation to me.

For me, driving the STi is much more enjoyable than driving the RX-8. Awesome power and superb handling. You have to drive an AWD car differently than a RWD and it's not a tossable, but you can't call the STi's handling "average".

Then you obviously don't know anything about FWD sport coupes/sedans. Don't discount them because they are FWD.

Well, you know that POS Mazdaspeed Protege is overrated and sucks, because its FWD, pulls .88+ on skidpad and slalom speed over 70mph. What am I thinking.

It completly sucked when I ran quicker times at the autox vs an experienced 8 driver on several occasions.



Yeah...numbers are great when the torque steer hits, and you have to use super hard teeth rattling engine mounts to control the motor in a FWD car.

They suck..I don't care about the numbers....RWD feels right.

The first paragraph referred to something about "roots and history" Ike said. If roots and history meant a real advantage, Citroen would have nothing to do nowadays compared to Subaru and Mitsubishi. I was talking about the rally scene. I understand what Evos and Imrpezas are, as a matter of fact I'm a huge fan of them.

Driving pleasure is all too subjective. You may enjoy a Turbo AWD platform better. I usually drive both and enjoy RWD best.

I also agree the 8 is a sporty coupé. No extreme sports car meant in the layout.

Evos and Stis may be high performance saloons, but no sports car. A porsche cayman would match that definition a lot better to me. It ain't just about AWD, turbo, Brembo brakes and rock-hard suspension, there's somethin' else to it.

Yeah...numbers are great when the torque steer hits, and you have to use super hard teeth rattling engine mounts to control the motor in a FWD car.

They suck..I don't care about the numbers....RWD feels right. This isn't a discussion of what feels right. You are stating performance oriented FWD cars are overrated. I give you one example of a FWD car than can handle better and on par with cars double and triple its price tag and is underrated by most due to it being a FWD compact sedan and you retort, "RWD feels right".

Im not attacking you, I just think that is a rather idiotic statement to make.

Ok....for #'s a FWD econo sports car is underrated.

As for respescting them and all the money people sink into those pieces of compromising garbages are...they suck.

And yes...I am an idiot....but I like what I like.

This isn't a discussion of what feels right. You are stating performance oriented FWD cars are overrated. I give you one example of a FWD car than can handle better and on par with cars double and triple its price tag and is underrated by most due to it being a FWD compact sedan and you retort, "RWD feels right".

Im not attacking you, I just think that is a rather idiotic statement to make.Agreed. To people even bother to research anymore before throwing stuff out there. Look what Alfa Romeo is doing is European racing. They're only a few point behind BMW yet they're running all FWD cars.

What's there to research? The fact that Turbo neons blow away RX8's doesn't make you guys trade in your RX8's en masse, does it?

I hate FWD cars...and think they are pointless. The only use I have for a FWD car is for family transportation. And that's for a compact class car...anything bigger than that and it has to be RWD.

It's not about a certain FWD car blowing away a RWD car. Get the SRT-4 out of your head for the sake of this discussion.

Yes...inherently you'll have some traction issues when the same wheels propelling your vehicle are also turning it, but there so many amazingly well balanced FWD track cars out there. You just have to look. FWD cars make good people movers in the real world because there isn't a driveshaft running down the middle of the car and that reduces interior room.

They may be clueless but you are not Mr. Accurate either.

Up to 1986 group B specs ruled the World Rally Championship. Cars like the Lancia 037, Stratos, S4 and Peugeot 205 turbo 16 competed. This cars were designed as rally cars and THEN had their road version launched. A short number of them were made to be able to homologate the rally car.

Some of them were just prototypes with huge turbos (the s4 had an additional supercharger). In the early eighties 4wd was also introduced.

Some group B cars had in excess of 600 hp, the Lancia delta s4 could qualify for a formula 1 race back in its time.

In 1.986, Lancia driver Henri Toivonen and co-driver Sergio Cresto died in an accident in Rally Corsica. This event, among several spectator deaths triggered a change in FIA regulations and group A cars were born.

Group A cars MUST be based on mass produced cars. Mitsubishi Galant and Lancer, Subaru Legacy and Impreza, Toyota Celica GT4, Mazda 323 GTR, Lancia Delta... all those were Group A. Group A ruled until the late nineties.

WRC spec is an evolution of group A (less stringent rules) the manufacturer doesn't have to actually mass produce a road version of the car, they can add a turbo and AWD to a 2 liter powerplant. For the past 2 years the champ was a Citroen Xsara WRC, not an STi or an EVO.

The Xara WRC is BASED on a 2wd, 2 liter N/A econo box, a turbo AWD version of the Xara does not even EXIST (Except the one competing :) ) and is beating the hell out of subaru and mitsubishi and their rally heritage.

Group A cars had to have 2500 homologation production cars produced, which is how the STI and Evo came to be, there is nothing inaccurate about what I said.

The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.

Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.

Group A cars had to have 2500 homologation production cars produced, which is how the STI and Evo came to be, there is nothing inaccurate about what I said.

The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.

Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.


The only holdouts from a past era are Group B derived cars. Street versions of rally prototypes.

Group A HAD to be based in real world production cars, hence the winged saloons.

Where would you put the rally heritage?

And lastly, my Impreza Gt turbo which NEVER came to your shores, was the base model for the car Colin McRae won the title with, prepared by STi and Prodrive.

And YES I would compare it with STis and Evos of today. They weigh an average of 150 Kg more with less low end torque due to bigger turbos.

The only holdouts from a past era are Group B derived cars. Street versions of rally prototypes.

Group A HAD to be based in real world production cars, hence the winged saloons.

Where would you put the rally heritage?

And lastly, my Impreza Gt turbo which NEVER came to your shores, was the base model for the car Colin McRae won the title with, prepared by STi and Prodrive.

And YES I would compare it with STis and Evos of today. They weigh an average of 150 Kg more with less low end torque due to bigger turbos.Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand what the argument is here. You've basically just repeated his previous post regrading homologation rules as they relate to Group A cars...like the Evo and STi. Are you saying that the Group B prototypes in street form were more aggressive because the production verison was based on the rally version rather than the other way around? If that's the case I hope you don't honestly believe that when Mistu and Subaru first drew up plans for the STi and Evo they didn't design them with WRC in mind.

Then by that argument, the S204 must be putting down over 400 hp since they rate it at 320. The engine may be underrated, but not by that much. They still have to have some semblance of accuracy when it comes to rating the horsepower. Are you sure that the engine you are talking about isn't from one of the special versions, or even a Type RA spec C?

Here's the peak hp/tq rating for all STi versions:

STi Version - 238/224
STi Version II - 258/228
STi Version III - 278/242
STi Version IV - 278/242
STi Version V - 278/250
STi Version VI - 278/250
New Age STi - 278/275
USDM STi - 300/300
22B - 278/268
UK300 - 218/215
P1 - 278/253
RB5 - 218/214
555 - 208/214
Series McRae - 208/214
Cataluyna - 208/214
Terzo - 208/214
S201 - 300/260
S202 - 315/283
S203 - 320/311
S204 - 320/318

While

its likely to be a version 6 because 2001 is the last year of the gc8 before they stopped production for the release of the GDB and i dont know if there was any special versions released in japan for that year. alot of special versions are released in europe

Group A cars had to have 2500 homologation production cars produced, which is how the STI and Evo came to be, there is nothing inaccurate about what I said.

The reason why I said the STI and Evo are special and we're not likely to see cars like them again is because of those changes in the homologation rules. The Evo and STI are the only holdouts from a past era where rally bred monsters roamed the streets due to homologation rules.

Lastly, lets not compare your Impreza turbo to an STI or Evo.

holdouts from past era really doesn't apply to us in the united states, that past era never occured here. we didn't get any of the original "rally bred monsters" all we have is the recent versions of the high performance imprezas and lancers

holdouts from past era really doesn't apply to us in the united states, that past era never occured here. we didn't get any of the original "rally bred monsters" all we have is the recent versions of the high performance imprezas and lancers

They're just improved versions of the original homologation cars though. Hence Evo VIII, Evo IX, though some would argue the Evo VI and Evo VII is better than some of the more recent models, but you get the picture...

Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand what the argument is here. You've basically just repeated his previous post regrading homologation rules as they relate to Group A cars...like the Evo and STi. Are you saying that the Group B prototypes in street form were more aggressive because the production verison was based on the rally version rather than the other way around? If that's the case I hope you don't honestly believe that when Mistu and Subaru first drew up plans for the STi and Evo they didn't design them with WRC in mind.

YES!!! we got a winner :) Mitsu and Subaru EVOLVED an existing platform from a mass produced car, their ROOTS are mass produced cars. In group B the ROOTS were a rally monster. First was the legacy (I got to drive the turbo version, AWESOME!!) and the Galant, which both were Group A also.

That's what group A was ALL about, put power down from group B by requiring a mass produced car to be elegible to compete. Therefore we got to see heavily modified mass procuction cars in rallying. The lancer and Impreza are sold in many versions besides EVO and STi.

Think of formula one. Imagine they think it's too expensive and unsafe to run. Therefore they change the rules and make F1 cars be based on real world production cars.That's what happened.

I'm including Ike's statement so you can see the difference between my argument and his.


Originally Posted by Ike
You guys are clueless to the roots of these cars and the history and thought that went into them. They were developed from their inception to be WRC cars (replacing the Legacy and the Galant), due to homologation rules it was easier to use an existing nameplate and was also a smart move marketing wise. Maybe not a great marketing wise in America becuase of all the ignorant consumers that think they are just modified Lancers and Imprezas. You will most likely never see cars like the STI and Evo again because of the changes in the homologation rules, they are truely special and it's a shame an STI is clueless about his cars roots and just looks at it as a Impreza with a bunch of performance parts.

To me an Sti is an impreza with a bunch of performance parts. It isn't even a coupé anymore!!. It's an Impreza with a big turbo, blueprinted motor, bespoke exhaust, electronically controlled diffs and stiffer suspension. I'ts an AWESOME package, but it is what it is.

BTW, WRC regulations have been on since 1996-1997, and we've seen tons of Sti versions and evos since then. They won't disappear. They are great for marketing reasons, what people see is an Impreza or Lancer winning in rallying, a car BASED/ROOTED on the one they have home.

holdouts from past era really doesn't apply to us in the united states, that past era never occured here. we didn't get any of the original "rally bred monsters" all we have is the recent versions of the high performance imprezas and lancers

The fact you never got them doesn't mean they never existed. What you are now getting is vestiges from group A, which to me is a decaf version of group B.

All I'm saying is group A required a mass produced car, while group B didn't. To me the roots of an Evo/Sti is mass prouction, not rally cars. That's all.

I'm not denying they are fast, effective and nice pieces of awesome engineering. But they come for normal cars, not the ohter way round.

The fact you never got them doesn't mean they never existed. What you are now getting is vestiges from group A, which to me is a decaf version of group B.

All I'm saying is group A required a mass produced car, while group B didn't. To me the roots of an Evo/Sti is mass prouction, not rally cars. That's all.

I'm not denying they are fast, effective and nice pieces of awesome engineering. But they come for normal cars, not the ohter way round.

Thing is, modern WRC cars with half the horsepower in some cases would most likely beat a lot of those group B cars on a WRC rally stage.

Thing is, modern WRC cars with half the horsepower in some cases would most likely beat a lot of those group B cars on a WRC rally stage.

Group B and A never coexisted. I'ts all speculation.

Anyway it's great to see you know and like rallying in the US. Keep it up! :)

Anyway it's great to see you know and like rallying in the US. Keep it up! :)Unfortunately we can't. The cable network pulled WRC from their programming schedule in favor of NASCAR once they were purchased by FOX. It truly sucks.

Negotiations to get WRC back on speed are supposed to be completed in mid March.

Negotiations to get WRC back on speed are supposed to be completed in mid March.That's great news! Where did you hear that?

That's great news! Where did you hear that?

Well, I should say they are in negotiations, and hoping to get WRC back on the air this month, at least that's what WRC.com claims. However, speed may not even consider putting it back on depending on how much the WRC is demanding.

This is a great spot to mention this petition to bring back WRC to SPEED...

http://www.petitiononline.com/SpdTV

I never would have thought you guys were such WRC fans. If you get a chance (And haven't done it already) go to rally Finland. Seeing and hearing those cars through crests at 180-200 Km/h is something worth doing.

I got to see rally catalunya, but tarmac events are not as spectacular as dirt events.

Cheers! :)

will there be any rally's in the twisties????and will there be any 8's racing with the sti/evo's???

uhh, im talking about real life, not gran turismo 4, as in when you're going through "t3h tw1sti3zzz!111" and you're ass gets handed to you by a 4 door sedan

sure buddy,,, what fairy tale world you living in??? The 8 would absolutely destroy those cars. YOu should drive the 8 sometime, it is spectacular and especially when you rev it to 9k. try it....

i just got out of one about 10 minutes ago smart ass, and i happened to rev it to 9k, i've also been graced with the privelage to drive an STi and it would wreck an rx8 in every aspect of performance. and the only fairly tale world im living in is real life.

sure buddy, you're a 15 year old and don't have a licence to drive. And you are crazy to even suggest that the 8 won't absolutely blow the tinny sti doors clean off. It's simple physics.

and you're an idiot who spends way too much time on the internet talking about cars and has no concept of reality of how real cars perform and have built a false informed shell of disallusionment on the performance of your car. LOOK AT TESTS, GO DRIVE ON THE STREET you will get KILLED by an STi.

SteathFox: Ignore that idiot. He's definitely not living in reality.

yoU BOTh are friggon gullable IDIOTTTS......buahahahah

yoU BOTh are friggon gullable IDIOTTTS......buahahahah


HAHA. Ok fanboi. You know your rx8 can't do much stock vs stock against an STI because of the huge power difference, and equal handling, and you are just starting crap for amusement. Either way you are an idiot. It's time to get out of those training pants and grow up., or go drive an STI, so you can see what you are missing performance wise.
:rollingla

keep driving that pos with an upside down engine.

SteathFox: Ignore that idiot. He's definitely not living in reality.

glad someone that actually has REAL experience with STis and RX-8's came along

Bottomline: Put same driver in both cars, the STI beats the 8 except maybe at autocross and petrol station.

nope not even at autox, the sti is in A stock with the honda s2000 while the rx8 is in B :P cant even make the same class so you cant compare.

Stock for stock it would be pretty close in autox, put some hoosiers or victoracers on and the RX-8 gets the edge. AWD and turbo just isn't very good for autox, even just turbo or just AWD isn't so good until you start doing some mods.

keep driving that pos with an upside down engine.

i have the same thing as you tool :spank:

i have the same thing as you tool :spank:

wasn't ment for you pole licker :spank:

i have the same thing as you tool :spank:

That was meant for me, since I own an STi as a daily driver. I owned both the RX8 and STI at same time for one year, so if wants to argue his case, I welcome it, but this immature bashing has got to stop. This fanboi/hater can't bear the thought of this 4 Door Impreza blowing the doors off of his beloved RX8, so he calls it a POS, and claims the RX8 to be faster. I understand in a way. It's easy for some rx8 fanbois and owners to envy the STI. It's ashame we can't respect cars, even if we don't prefer to own them. Being young and immature is their excuse I suppose. Now I'm waiting for a stupid, immature return comment which I will ignore once again. ;)

This is quite sad, you guys really need to take a step back and think.

I think Darkmaz is just yanking our chain. It'snot exactly a huge revelation to say the STi is a better performing car than the RX-8.

we are different and in a world where different is not always appreciated ....think of yourself as a unique individual...someone who has seen the otherside... and laughs back at the ignorance, and close mindedness of people...just laugh back at him and feel sorry for him.
:)

Well put. :icon_tup:

I think Darkmaz is just yanking our chain. It'snot exactly a huge revelation to say the STi is a better performing car than the RX-8.


Boooo, it was more fun when they thought he was being serious.

Well, if thinking he doesn't like the STI, and enjoys bashing it was for his own enjoyment, and he actually loves the car, then yeah, he got me. The rest of you need to stop and think at how much of a pathetic idiot it takes to continuosly do this. What's sad is that the people who knew actually get amused by it (IKE). You guys really need to get out more. This internet is frying your brains. ;)

What's sad is that the people who knew actually get amused by it (IKE). You guys really need to get out more. This internet is frying your brains. ;)

What's really sad is that you couldn't figure it out on your own, and funny.

What's really sad is that you couldn't figure it out on your own, and funny.

I guess you are right. It's really sad that ones who responded don't spend their life on this forum, so we miss out on the constant joke thrashing of the STI one individual throughout the forum makes, and don't realize he's totally joking. I should be spending more of my free time on here, so for that I am truly sorry. :rolleyes:

I believe the 93-97 Ford Probe GT was an underrated car. I can run mid 15's, get 28 mpg highway, and it's fun to Auto X. To bad so many of them are mistreated...

Anyone want to E-punch me for my opinion? :mdrmed:

I guess you are right. It's really sad that ones who responded don't spend their life on this forum, so we miss out on the constant joke thrashing of the STI one individual throughout the forum makes, and don't realize he's totally joking. I should be spending more of my free time on here, so for that I am truly sorry. :rolleyes:

Whatever makes you feel better.

I believe the 93-97 Ford Probe GT was an underrated car. I can run mid 15's, get 28 mpg highway, and it's fun to Auto X. To bad so many of them are mistreated...

Anyone want to E-punch me for my opinion? :mdrmed:

That car has gotten big with the ricer crowd, I swear I've seen about 5 riced out Probes this week alone.

Whatever makes you feel better.

ROCK ON INTERNET MAN ;)

I didnt read the first 180 posts, but id say an underrated sports car is the Mazda Miata MX-5: rwd, light, comes stock with an LSD. Looks real good with a hardtop.

I believe the 93-97 Ford Probe GT was an underrated car. I can run mid 15's, get 28 mpg highway, and it's fun to Auto X. To bad so many of them are mistreated...

Anyone want to E-punch me for my opinion? :mdrmed:
I almost bought one but the poor handling (compared to my '84 RX-7) and torque steer turned me away.