What Car RX8 vs 350Z vs TT vs Crossfire
 

Detailed review/comparison in What Car this month. Not had time to read it properly, but the results are:

1. RX8 (5 Star)
2. 350Z (4 *)
3. TT (4 *)
4. Crossfire (3*)

Sorry, I've not got a scanner, otherwise I'd post it here. Perhaps someone else can do the honours?

Scanning and posting probably already done, as its a few months old (the review).

On the other hand scanning and posting breaks quite a few copyright laws which could get the site in trouble.

Welcome to the forum, Brooker - Have you ordered an RX-8?

Nope it's a new 'comparison' review in this months What Car, They do the same comparison as Top Gear did, except for the new V6 audi in place of the old 225 model. Good 8 pages of comparison, and the RX-8 comes out overall winner, even against the V6 TT. :D

Oh cool, in which case scan away!

BTW I just bought Nov's Top Gear. JC has a page on his test drive of the BMW Z4. Oh he hates that little piece of junk :D

mpg
 

Great news :)

Did they do an independant mpg test ?
Cheers.

No, Whatcar just quote the old manufacturer's figures.

The 0-60 time of 7.4 was a bit disappionting. However all 4 cars 0-60s were not that good, so perhaps they had a damp track:

TT - 6.9
350Z - 6.9
RX8 - 7.4
Crossfire 7.8

Whatcar's predicted retained value for the RX8 after 3 years is 55%.

Their overall verdict of the RX8 was 'Like nothing else on the road. Good looks and great ability, in a spacious and affordable package'

Overall, it trounced its rivals!

I must buy this today to add to my collection.

I checked the residual figures in Auto Express yesterday and they indicate 58% retained after 3 years.

Chris

They made a few references to handling in the damp (especially in relation to the TT) and so it would support your theory that they had a damp test day.

I'd be very disappointed in 7.4, and it would explain why I couldn't tell the difference between the hi and low power models.

They may have tried the 0-60 time with the DSC and TCS switched on (or partially on) as I am sure I have read posts indicating that this will reproduce the claimed times.

Chris

Half a second slower than a 350Z, sounds about right (the TT would have a traction advantage due to its 4 wheel drive).

What we need to do now is compare the in-gear times with those in the Autocar test (these will not be affected by a wet track).

So - it is just Autocar talking down the residuals at 45%. We know they really don't like the 8, but at least they are beginning to look more and more out of step with the rest of the press.

Just read it, and its a good review. BUT I do find Whatcar rate a new car with the highest marks, and its the "next best thing" until the next "next best thing" comes along.

To summarise:

FOR - Superbly agile, rev hungry engine, clever rear doors, seats four, low price.

AGAINST - Engine has to be pushed hard, thirst, residual values.

VERDICT - Like nothing else on the road. Good looks and great ability, in a spacious and affordable package.


All this from the parent company of AUTOCAR !!!!!!!!!!!!


AnilS.

True, but the 350Z and Crossfire are new as well and they only get 4 stars!


Weird thing I thought was the RX-8's poorest score was in the 'Behind the Wheel' category where it gets 3 stars and the TT and 350Z get 4.

This seems strange as it says "THe RX-8 has the sportiest cabin" and "Nissan has made a good effort of the cabin, but it doesnt have the same pizzazz as the Audi or Mazda"

All in all another great review. I dont know how people can still have doubts about the car.

I think their summary hits the nail on the head

THE MAZDA RX-8 HAS REWRITTEN THE RULE BOOK FOR THE COUPE CLASS. IT'S ADDICTIIVELY REV-HUNGRY ENGINE, PIN-SHARP HANDLING AND IMPRESSIVE SPACE AND PRACICALITY PLACE IT HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE THE COMPETITION. THROW INTO THE MIX THE WOW FACTOR PROVIDED BY THOSE CLEVER REAR DOORS, A HIGH QUALITY CABIN, AND ITS PHENOMINAL VALUE FOR MONEY AND THE RX-8 IS AS CLOSE TO PERFECTION AS WEVE EXPERIENCED IN THE CLASS