just looking at the magazine review threads, anyone else notice how close the two cars are in terms of fuel economy, just goes to show that in terms of it's performance rivals it's not that far off the mark.

as people have noted everyting's relative.

(also noted the 350 is listed at £24K, i thought to match the spec of the high power RX-8 you were talking in the region of 31K for the nissan touring package?)

 

the 350z when it was launched (or available to order) was something like 25k but with the GT pack it took it up to 27k


I have to ask the question why is the rx8 being compared to the 350z in journos. Where it states best buy is the 350z. They are completely different cars, and the comment about the rotary's fuel economy figures being poor, hell what do you expect from a 3.5 litre V6 engine 45 miles to the gallon i think not. Hell i dont get much more that 25 in my 2 litre 6 cylinder is200

 

I think it's purely because they are both new Japanese coupes which revive a history for the manufacturer. The similarity ends there but it's enough for the car mags to get as 'head to head' article which always attracts more interest.

 

awww come on: they've been a hot topic of comparison on this forum since day 1 and whilst I agree that they're very different it's inevitable that given the timing of their respective releases we will continue to wonder about their merits.

Whilst on that subject: how come when Autocar trashed the RX-8 we say 'boo-hiss' but when Clarkson savages the 350Z (the ONLY bad Z review I've ever seen) we say 'good for him'? It's all perspective.

 

WE'RE NOT BIASED ARE WE??

Cheers
Oilman

 

But the RX-8 vs 350Z comparison has surely been done to death by every car reviewer in the world by now.

Almost everyone (except Autocar) concludes by saying that it's not actually a very valid comparison and they are really two excellent but quite different cars. And then they go and repeat the exercise again next month .

The Autocar review slagged off the 8 for not being like the Z (which it's not supposed to be) and Clarkson slagged off the Z for not being more refined, practical and sophisticated (more like the 8 in other words).

There are lots of better comparisons you could make. Here's some I'd be more interested in, just off the top of my head:

BMW 325Ci (I want to hear that the 8 is faster and handles better).
Celica T-Sport (8 should be significantly faster or I'd be tempted to save £3K).
Audi TT (225 not V6 which is in a different price league - 8 should be much more fun to drive).
Peugeot 406 Coupe (similar concept to 8 but old design, therefore 8 should be comprehensively better all round).

 

Well, in the US, the Z gets 20/26 (city/highway) where the RX8 is rated at 18/24. For comparison, the S2000, EVO and STI are rated at 20/26, 18/26 and 18/24 respectively. Unscientifically frpom lurking on other message boards, I have noticed the S2K gets the best MPG (low-mid 20s to over 30 on the highway is possible), followed by the Z (low 20s usually to near 30 is possible), EVO (around 20 usually and upper 20s are possible - we only have the 5 speed and need a 6th gear for highway cruising) and finally the STI (similar to the RX8).

So, I do think there is a difference between the z's and RX8's fuel efficiency. BTW..those numbers are in US gallons so you'll have to do some math to convert to Imperial gallons.