Agreed,but if the renesis was FI with the same hp or more maybe it would be more fair

and if your evo had a 13b with 300hp Ill take the 13b evo

 

Just beacuse the 4g63 has been around for a while doesnt mean mistu has it all figured out. I wouldnt consider that thing any more reliable than my betaII. Probably less so if we are talking strictly about the power plant.

 

why? because its got an awd system to make up for its defficiencies in the suspension and chasis and usually driver? That car without AWD is....well.....a lancer.

 

If this were a public poll, than upwards of 80% would probably vote for the turbo 4, I'd think.

 

Being that most of the "public" would probably be from redneck USA 80% would choose 'other' because neither have a big enough displacement.

Like the one guy in this thread that said something about needing to swap out to AT LEAST a big v6 if you take the renesis out of the 8.

 

it was a joke

 

boy when you read most of this it sounds like a frankinstein movie.come up with an idea and watch the fire burn!!anyone with the great backing of a large company could,would or might come up with the answer we all can love about or 8's.in time the answer will be out the box.you need to remember all cars good and bad started somewhere in someone's mind to paper then to the drawing board of life.not all are good or bad but with time the only thing not in stone i'll wait and see what's next on the board!mazda kicks butt and also gets it's but kicked!!so on that note i'll love my RX8 till it dies and won't come back to life at that time i will decide what i want to drive then and there!we all have own way of getting what we want this is no big deal

 

that is so obious, if it was not the case mazda would have sold a 500,000 rx-8

 

If this so called MX-8 had been built instead of the RX-8, and it had 274 hp/280 lbs driving the rear wheels, and if Mazda had put as much engineering creativity into the balance of this MX-8 as it has the RX-8, then there probably wouldn't be anyone here who would chose a new rotary version that produced much less hp and a whole lot less torque.

Speaking of this so called MX-6. It would dust the Z car and many others, and if Mazda offered an awd high boost version (called the Mazdaspeed MX-8), this one would own the streets. This so called MX-8 wouldn't have as many issues either. The only problem I see with this imaginary car is that there would be too many on the road and we wouldn't have any exclusivity at all.

Now the Renesis in a 250 lbs lighter RX-7 would be nce.

 

that is one of the top 5 most incohearant things i have ever attempted to read in my entire life.

 

or a 3 rotor renesis in an rx-8 with 300 hp

 

that too, but maybe even more issues.

 

more R&D for the rotary will make it more reliable, and the fact that mazda should sooner or latter stop making the same mistakes over and over againg

 

It's just thats simple huh? Add AWD and it'll take care of suspension and chassis deficiencies. Guess what, even with AWD it's still a Lancer. You tell me how deficient you think it is if you ever line up next to one at the strip or go against one on a track. Take solace in your hypotheticals, because reality is your car is the one that's deficient in the realm of performance. Now go ahead and call my car ugly or insult the interior, because it's the only leg you have to stand on.

You also might want to stop coming across as an idiot with the grammar and spelling of a second grader before you call other posts "incohearant".

 

35+ years of R&D isn't enough?

 

Can we stop with the personal attacks? Mac11 you're the worst culprit.

 

you know whats weird? how many years has the piston engine being in production and by how many manufacturers an yet they keep making engines with problems, and im not talking about a new car company remember the BMW m3 engines, the mitsu montero, etc.

so give mazda a brake they are the only one , and remember how the renesis came to life with very limited R&D and yet it is comparable to piston engines of it's SIZE, fisical not displacement, weight and size.

 

35+ years of R&D? Compare that to at least 5 motor companies, doing at least 50+ years of R&D on the piston engine, and I am significantly underreporting the number here (it's way more than 50 years and way more than 5 motor companies), and you get 250+ years of R&D. So yeah, 35 years of R&D is nothing compared to that.

 

here you go again. by which performance metric is it deficient? and yes your car is ugly

 

 

 

Every aspect of acceleration, handling, and braking. Any other questions?

 

compared to an enzo?

 

You know what I find funny about all this is that when someone says "torque" there's now an association with a blown 4 cylinder. To me, having started "old school" I think big block V8, followed by small block V8, followed by a good V6 or straight 6, followed by blown 4 cylinder. Just goes to show how much the automotive landscape has changed in the last 40 years.

And yes, please stop the personal attacks. Points can be made just fine without them.

 

The 8's 60-0 braking distance is up there with Ferraris, iirc