Mustang VS RX8 VS Z??
#1
Revin 9500k
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Orange County
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mustang VS RX8 VS Z??
hmmmm does anyone see anything wrong with this info.....
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...6/pageId=62010
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...6/pageId=62010
#7
Get in ma belly!!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a fan of this article. Have you guys watched the vid? It's weak!! I don't know what the hell the guy driving the 8 was doing on the 0-60 run?? The review is full of holes.....comparing price.....you can buy a base 6speed 8 for $24k!!
Even this old guy agrees.... :D
- Irish
Even this old guy agrees.... :D
- Irish
Last edited by irish8; 01-23-2005 at 01:08 PM.
#8
I think it makes sense to me. They go the one with 800 pounds of concrete in the trunk which would explain the 0-60 figures. But just think what the handling numbers would be like without that extra weight!
#9
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Boulder County, Colorado
Posts: 7,966
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Looks to me like they were deliberately trying to make the '8 out as worse than it is. Makes me wonder about what money or favors were passed underneath the table... which bothers me a bit, because Edmunds is usually pretty good. I mean come ON, 3810 Lbs?!?!? BS!!!
#10
THREAD KILLER
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that data, one would think RX-8s should have huge brakes! Check this out:
Curb weight: 3810 lbs
Zero-to-60-mph braking: 108 ft.
... while the 3450-lb Mustang GT stops at 121 ft.
Curb weight: 3810 lbs
Zero-to-60-mph braking: 108 ft.
... while the 3450-lb Mustang GT stops at 121 ft.
#12
Bummed, but bring on OU!
I think the 3810 is a simple typo, 3180. I've seen that weight listed before. As for 0-60 or 1/4 mile times, give me an 11 second drag car and i can run 14's all day long :D . I saw my first 05 Mustang about a month ago, and my first thought was, "Man, that thing is huge." I like the overall apearance and performance, but it's just too big. But maybe that comes from driving a smaller car around for a year+.
#14
the Doctor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bryn Mawr, PA
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no that 3810 isnt a typo, instead of puttting the weight of the car down, they put down the max load of the car...look on the placard inside the door with your manufacture date. It has a number for max weight on the front back and entire car. and for the entire car its 3809. If they are pulling weights from that, then they really have no credibility.
#15
Burns rice?...Cool
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: St Louis
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too thought edmunds to be a reputable source for info. A typo, I could understand but this is crap. And can you believe that rediculous 18/24 mpg they list...oh wait, that is what MAZDA claims.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post