Notices
General Automotive Discuss all things automotive here other than the RX-8

Mustang VS RX8 VS Z??

Old Jan 22, 2005 | 01:20 AM
  #1  
xxdevilzeroxx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Revin 9500k
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
From: Orange County
Mustang VS RX8 VS Z??

hmmmm does anyone see anything wrong with this info.....

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...6/pageId=62010
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2005 | 01:26 AM
  #2  
StealthTL's Avatar
Metatron
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,286
Likes: 184
From: A Pacific Island.
Porky, ain't she.......

.....I think they got the wheelbase right....

S :D
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2005 | 01:31 AM
  #3  
xxdevilzeroxx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Revin 9500k
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
From: Orange County
i didnt know the RX8 weigh more than the V8 mustang
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2005 | 03:11 AM
  #4  
shaolin's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Repost!
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2005 | 09:23 AM
  #5  
Rotary Nut's Avatar
"...I'm a Dapper Dan man"
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 840
Likes: 1
From: Newport News, Va
It would if it was a FULLY loaded GT with everything. My Auto with the Sport package was just under 3000.
Reply
Old Jan 22, 2005 | 10:21 PM
  #6  
Cattywampus's Avatar
Turbos blow!!
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
From: my engine bay
0-60 in 7 seconds. maybe the auto. 1/4 mile in 15.43 and 92 mph. I don't know about that
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 12:14 AM
  #7  
irish8's Avatar
Get in ma belly!!
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, Texas
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
Attached Thumbnails Mustang VS RX8 VS Z??-thumbs-down.jpg  

Last edited by irish8; Jan 23, 2005 at 01:08 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 10:01 AM
  #8  
SDB's Avatar
SDB
Registered
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
From: Florida
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!
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 12:24 PM
  #9  
Omicron's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,966
Likes: 4
From: Boulder County, Colorado
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!!!
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 12:35 PM
  #10  
Xyntax's Avatar
THREAD KILLER
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, California
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.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 06:33 PM
  #11  
Ike's Avatar
Ike
Blue By You
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
All those times are .5+ secs slower than they would be with good drivers, gives you an idea of what your average to poor driver would do though.
Reply
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 07:14 PM
  #12  
therm8's Avatar
Bummed, but bring on OU!
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 1
From: Charleston, SC
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+.
Reply
Old Jan 24, 2005 | 10:09 AM
  #13  
xxdevilzeroxx's Avatar
Thread Starter
Revin 9500k
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
From: Orange County
hmmmmmmm
Reply
Old Jan 29, 2005 | 08:58 AM
  #14  
Feras's Avatar
the Doctor
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
From: Bryn Mawr, PA
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.
Reply
Old Jan 30, 2005 | 09:58 PM
  #15  
carguy425's Avatar
Burns rice?...Cool
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: St Louis
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.
Reply
Old Jan 31, 2005 | 08:16 AM
  #16  
Gambit's Avatar
Screw gas mileage
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 1
From: Marlton, NJ
Yeah I read that article...It looked a little mustang-biased
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
05TR1CH
New Member Forum
14
Apr 18, 2023 04:56 AM
SupraG
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
7
Sep 21, 2015 12:09 AM
vetteor8
New Member Forum
14
Jul 25, 2015 11:43 AM
T_Mags
New Member Forum
9
Jul 24, 2015 11:29 AM
RX7.9
New Member Forum
0
Jul 20, 2015 12:01 PM


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 AM.