No substitute for torque
 

Love my RX-8 of course... However, spent the weekend driving a Maserati Spyder with a big V8 -- close to 400hp from 4.2l, no supercharger or turbo necessary (thanks to ferrari's engineering).

Bottom line, car was amazing in every gear -- always enough torque on tap to slam your back into the seat.

Nice to be challenged by Audi RS6s and the like, as opposed to the slammed Civics and Integras that usually want to race my 8.

Regarding my last point, the hp issues have really affected perceptions of the 8 among non-owners -- everyone I know think its slow, therefore, everyone wants to challenge the car because they think they can beat it.

Must admit, I wouldn't mind more power in the 8, now that I'm used to 400!

wow ummmmmm yah lets drop 120k on car i better get good speed what do u think u get what u pay for

By the time people's factory warrantees are out, there will likely be dozen's of turbo and FI options available for the RX-8.

So I'm not worrying about it. Not to mention the factory turbo for 2005.

Re: No substitute for torque
 

I have a midget in the back seat that reaches over and pulls my head back when I hit the gas.....same effect if thats what your lookin for....:)

Re: Re: No substitute for torque
 

Oh, I didn't know you had kids :)

Yep....figured the little bastards could at least make my driving experience more "authentic" instead of makin all that noise in the back...:)

Kidding...kidding....sorry if I offended any vertically challanged 8 owners out there....lol..:)

Re: No substitute for torque
 

True, it's no torque-monster, and even an Accord V6 can give the 8 quite a challenge in a (drag) race. But so what, that's not what the car is about.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of torque. The feeling or method of power delivery is far more important to me than the actual statistics. I love linear power bands, where the power increases with revs, pushing you farther and farther back into the seat as long as you dare keep your foot in it.

Even if a turbo-8 was available for the same price, I wouldn't have bought it. Turbos, IMHO, upset the balance of a powerband. And the 8, to me, is all about balance, smoothness, finesse...

Sure would be nice to be able to afford a maseratti, but you know what, it's nice enough being able to afford the 8. You really think you get 4X the performance out of the maseratti for 4X the price? I don't think so, but if you did, I'd love to drive it. :)

Want torque-get a turbo diesel-all torque no horsepower.

Re: Re: No substitute for torque
 

C&D's 0-60 time for the Accord V6 manual is 5.9, same as the RX8. For the automatic Accord, they got 7.0.

Re: Re: Re: No substitute for torque
 

Thats kinda like the RX-8, but I think the RX-8 might be slower. I am not sure though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: No substitute for torque
 

According to this thread, the auto RX-8 goes 0 to 60 in 7.2 seconds.

viggen, besides the huge power, what did you think of the spyder? i see them alot around here and have began to fall in love with them.

all the articles i read about the new maserati say is BS. fact is i love this italian beast but it has gone far away from its tradition. the 3200GT was a true maser as the legendery Ghilbi Cup. you see, all that car maker was about is turbo, twin turbo to be more acurate. i would never buy a n/a maser, porsche does the job much better

You're right - as long as you completely ignore the first 50 years of Maserati's history, and focus exclusively on the abysmal, crappy cars produced after they introduced the Biturbo.

In other words - your statement that "all that car maker was about is turbo" is utter nonsense - Maserati's entire history except for those horrible Biturbos is about normally aspirated power. From 1914 until 1981, Maseratis were normally aspirated (well, there was the occasional supercharger thrown in waaay back when). Through the glory years of the 1950s with Fangio winning the World Championship, there were no turbos. Through the 60s and 70s and the great sports and touring cars, there were no turbos. The Biturbo, introduced in 1981, and it's descendants were generally considered to be terrible cars, even if the later mid-90s models finally made decent power. Maserati's history and reputation are all about normally aspirated racers and sports cars; all the biturbo cars ever did was tarnish Maserati's reputation.

If you had any sense of and respect for Maserati history, you'd never buy a turbo Maserati! ;)

Regards,
Gordon

A few points:

1. The 3200 GT is not a true Maserati, it was designed under FIAT ownership. The current Coupe/Spyder are based on that car, but are closer to true Maseratis; they were massaged and improved following Ferrari's purchase of Maserati several years ago

2.The new Quattroporte sedan coming in Q4 is all Maserati, the first designed entirely under Ferrari stewardship. It is the best car in its class -- monster performance and style, and a driving experience similar to a 360 with an extra set of doors. Then you have MC12, and Coupe GranSport coming soon - Maserati is back!

3.Maserati was only about turbos during its down years, the 1980s and early 1990s

4.Regarding the torque issue, I love my RX-8 -- however, like other posters, I believe actual 0-60 times are closer to 7 seconds, not 5.9. The car is beautifully balanced, styled, packaged and trimmed, but straightline acceleration is not its strength -- I believe that's why every high-school kid in a slammed civic wants to race, because they're confident they can win or at least keep up

5.Yes the Maserati is expensive, but besides the amazing performance, it has an amazing interior (that Porsche can't touch), tons of character and cachet, and you really feel like you're driving something special

Whereas the lines of the Coupe are pleasantly and elegantly understated, those of the Spyder are virtually nonexistent, lending the car a dull, amorphous, and emotionless feel.

At least one car mag has commented on the Spyder's dullness, that the lines go better with the Coupe.

This visual phenomenon reminds me of the Jaguar XK8, where the convertible appears to have a complete lack of exterior body detail.

Agree
 

I agree, the Spyder lacks the visual appeal of the Coupe; neither is really a stunner.

That said, I was shocked by how much attention the Spyder I received everywhere I drove over the past weekend -- suburban NJ, Manhattan, etc..., people swarmed over the car. Also surprising because it was dark blue and rather understated.

Next generation due in 2006 will have even more power/performance and more exciting looks to go along with the drop dead gorgeous Quattroporte...

I agree with you on the Quattroporte. It looks good. I also agree with you on the dark blue, which makes a dull car duller.