Notices
RX-8 Discussion General discussion about the RX-8 that doesn't fit in one of the specialty forums.

Car and Driver - RX8 WINS!!!!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 04-23-2007, 09:58 PM
  #76  
road warrior
 
LionZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oakland and Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by delhi
i rather the rx8 lose 300lbs that push out 300hp.
Same.
Old 04-23-2007, 10:41 PM
  #77  
Future Rotary User
 
lone_wolf025's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RoXanneBlack8
i agree with above poster! hell yeah to an elise killer!
Is there any word on weight for the next gen?

Edit-

Just checked the z board again. Props to the balanced and fair evaluation of both the 8 and Z by "RX-8 Guy." Well said and thought out!

Last edited by lone_wolf025; 04-23-2007 at 10:49 PM.
Old 04-24-2007, 12:44 AM
  #78  
2005 Black RX-8 GT 6M
 
CarAndDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose Area
Posts: 6,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NoRotorNoMotor
I can really agree with your point .... Even with the RX'8 lack of hp ... its pretty damn easy to look down at the speedo and say ..... ohhh crap ... I dunno if I wanna go that fast through here!!!

The car simply drives as fast as you want it to without effort. Soon the question becomes (I remember this quote from an old racing beat catalog) -- "How fast do you want to go??"
Sure the 8 is fast enough for most drivers, but I think it could be a bit quicker. I'm not one of those who say the 8 needs another 100HP, but it could stand another 25-50HP. Enough to get the 8 a good 0-60 in the high 5's without resorting to needing delicate and skilled high RPM drops.
Old 04-24-2007, 02:18 AM
  #79  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PhotoMunkey
Once again, Ike manages to open his mouth and conclusively demonstrate his ignorance of all things automotive. Hang a 500 horsepower, iron-block, supercharged 5.4 liter truck mill over the front axle of an already too-heavy front end and tell someone it's "virtually the same" for only a small fortune more... Yeah, that works!
Yeah, I'm the ignorant one... Go look up the difference between a GT, Shelby GT, and a Shelby GT500, then notice no one but you is talking about the GT500 but you. Once again, you've been owned.
Old 04-24-2007, 02:21 AM
  #80  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here are the numbers from the comparo if anyone cares.

1/4 mile
13.7 @ 104 (Z)
13.7 @ 104 (Shelby GT)
14.6 @ 97 (TT)
15.0 @ 93 (RX-8)

0-30mph
2.0 (Z)
2.1 (Shelby GT)
2.2 (RX-8)
2.4 (TT)

0-60mph
5.1 (Shelby GT)
5.2 (Z)
6.0 (TT)
6.5 (RX-8)

0-100mph
12.6 (Z)
12.6 (Shelby GT)
15.4 (TT)
18.0 (RX-8)

LB per BHP
10.9 (Z)
11.1 (Shelby GT)
13.2 (RX-8)
14.8 (TT)
Old 04-24-2007, 02:49 AM
  #81  
road warrior
 
LionZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oakland and Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
You know Ike, last time I checked Car and Driver posted more than just acceleration numbers or did they decide to run the entire comparo inside a dragstrip this time?
Old 04-24-2007, 03:06 AM
  #82  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LionZoo
You know Ike, last time I checked Car and Driver posted more than just acceleration numbers or did they decide to run the entire comparo inside a dragstrip this time?
I don't have the issue yet, I just posted what I found on the net.
Old 04-24-2007, 06:25 AM
  #83  
Registered
 
9291150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgetown
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^ I think the car is getting slower! That probably the slowest times I've seen for the 8 in any of the major mags...0-100 in 18 sec???
Old 04-24-2007, 06:44 AM
  #84  
The Prototype
 
DailyDriver2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dos
Here we go. It seems there are at least 1 to 2 "I drove the 350z and it sucked, glad to be back in my 8" threads here weekly. Don't go flaming other forums when this forum does it all the time. The RX-8 won, no need to go stir up trouble.

Stop getting your panties in wad.... I am stating the obvious as you can see. Nobody is starting trouble... and for that " i drove a 350Z and it sucked" comment.... i did drive a 350Z and it doesn't suck. If you look at any of my previos post i think the 350Z is a great performer just like the previous Z cars of the past and that i have owned.

My gripe is the fugly body style.Period.

Last edited by DailyDriver2k5; 04-24-2007 at 06:46 AM.
Old 04-24-2007, 06:46 AM
  #85  
The Prototype
 
DailyDriver2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9291150
^ I think the car is getting slower! That probably the slowest times I've seen for the 8 in any of the major mags...0-100 in 18 sec???
Yeah that was a pretty slow run for the 8..... oh well at least we know its not norm for the RX-8, rather the latter.
Old 04-24-2007, 08:04 AM
  #86  
Registered
iTrader: (1)
 
r0tor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9291150
^ I think the car is getting slower! That probably the slowest times I've seen for the 8 in any of the major mags...0-100 in 18 sec???
the engine probably wasn't fully broken in yet. If you look at C&D's long term test car from a couple years ago, it ran similar numbers until the engine had 15 or 20k miles on at which point it ran in the mid 14's for the quarter mile.
Old 04-24-2007, 09:50 AM
  #87  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 9291150
^ I think the car is getting slower! That probably the slowest times I've seen for the 8 in any of the major mags...0-100 in 18 sec???
All of them should have been a little quicker considering the trap speeds.. Probably a conditions thing. The trap speed for the 8 isa little lower than most mags but also more like what drivers here are/were getting. Also, the RX-8 has gained a little weight through the years according to listed curb weights.

Last edited by Ike; 04-24-2007 at 09:53 AM.
Old 04-24-2007, 11:10 AM
  #88  
Registered User
 
sosonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I agree the RX-8 could use 60HP to 100HP more and do 0-60 in the low 5s.

Ike, I think somebody revved the hell out of an RX-8 and got 5.9 or 5.8 in the 0-60, so it would at least get the Audi TT.

Plain and simple, the RX-8 is close to being the perfect inexpensive sports "coupe", if it had a little more HP.
Old 04-24-2007, 12:26 PM
  #89  
Registered
 
Design1stCode2nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RoXanneBlack8
332 hp in a 3000 lb car? enjoy tryin to keep that thing straight. and enjoy that gas mileage...
The RX8 could handle another 50-100hp easy. Look at the MS3, FWD 260hp. A Vette has 400hp and it seems to stay straight.
Old 04-24-2007, 12:30 PM
  #90  
The Prototype
 
DailyDriver2k5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd
The RX8 could handle another 50-100hp easy. Look at the MS3, FWD 260hp. A Vette has 400hp and it seems to stay straight.

And was just announced that its getting a 30Hp boost for all '08 C6. So yeah...the RX-8 could use a cool 100HP more.
Old 04-24-2007, 05:30 PM
  #91  
road warrior
 
LionZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oakland and Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
All of them should have been a little quicker considering the trap speeds.. Probably a conditions thing. The trap speed for the 8 isa little lower than most mags but also more like what drivers here are/were getting. Also, the RX-8 has gained a little weight through the years according to listed curb weights.
What trim level was tested? I know the early run RX-8 test in Car and Driver (the comparo between the G35 and the Mustang Cobra) used a base/Sport mule; the curb weight listed for that one was 2940, the lowest I've seen. Road & Track's GT tester weighed 3000. Over the years, the RX-8 has gained maybe 30-40 pounds from the new battery, new starter, and heat shield and engine mount changes. Car and Driver's completely loaded with everything GT long termer is the heaviest listed RX-8 I've ever seen at 3079 and posted acceleration times similar to what CD got in this comparo when tested new. I think a bit more miles and the times would be a bit quicker, but also if a lower trim level was tested they could save perhaps almost 100 pounds.
Old 04-24-2007, 05:31 PM
  #92  
road warrior
 
LionZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oakland and Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
I don't have the issue yet, I just posted what I found on the net.
My apologies then.
Old 04-24-2007, 09:56 PM
  #93  
Registered
 
swiftnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 8 could use more power. My bike puts out the close to the same horsepower at the wheels and weighs 500lbs. Mazda engineers should drop 300lbs and add a +50~70hp supercharger. That would make the 8 handle better and increase performance. This can be done for a reasonable cost. MazdaSpeed label it and we'd have a killer.

Last edited by swiftnet; 04-24-2007 at 10:02 PM.
Old 04-24-2007, 10:29 PM
  #94  
Klingon Grammarian
 
Krankor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well, I, for one, refuse to get too excited about their verdict. For if they had ruled otherwise, rated the 8 last, my response would've been "Screw them, what do they know?" So I'm not gonna get all excited because they happened to agree with me this time.
Old 04-24-2007, 10:51 PM
  #95  
Ike
Blue By You
 
Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LionZoo
What trim level was tested? I know the early run RX-8 test in Car and Driver (the comparo between the G35 and the Mustang Cobra) used a base/Sport mule; the curb weight listed for that one was 2940, the lowest I've seen. Road & Track's GT tester weighed 3000. Over the years, the RX-8 has gained maybe 30-40 pounds from the new battery, new starter, and heat shield and engine mount changes. Car and Driver's completely loaded with everything GT long termer is the heaviest listed RX-8 I've ever seen at 3079 and posted acceleration times similar to what CD got in this comparo when tested new. I think a bit more miles and the times would be a bit quicker, but also if a lower trim level was tested they could save perhaps almost 100 pounds.
All the early tests in a few mags were done with a prototype non production car. I'm not sure what trim level it was since my postman seems to be reading it cover to cover before he gives it to me.
Old 04-24-2007, 11:20 PM
  #96  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
23109VC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
if the rx8 lost 300 lbs and gained 50hp it would kick ***
Old 04-24-2007, 11:24 PM
  #97  
Grand Chancellor
 
delhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home of the NIMBYs
Posts: 2,730
Received 58 Likes on 47 Posts
For number peepers, the rx8 loses. But for those that drive cars, it always ended up winning. Weird huh?
Old 04-24-2007, 11:29 PM
  #98  
Illudium Q-36 Space Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
Kane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: PCB
Posts: 6,364
Received 41 Likes on 31 Posts
Can someone scan this thing please? I am in the Mid East and I wont see it for 3 months if no one scans it.... pretty please.
Old 04-24-2007, 11:57 PM
  #99  
road warrior
 
LionZoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Oakland and Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
All the early tests in a few mags were done with a prototype non production car. I'm not sure what trim level it was since my postman seems to be reading it cover to cover before he gives it to me.
The Car and Driver car was a prototype, but the Road & Track one was a production car. The pictures that they have in the article is the silver Frankenstein GT with no sunroof, but they actually tested a red production GT. The trim level tested in this comparo was a loaded GT with nav.
Old 04-25-2007, 12:18 AM
  #100  
1.21 Jiggawatts
 
Stavesacre21's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lima, OH
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krankor
Well, I, for one, refuse to get too excited about their verdict. For if they had ruled otherwise, rated the 8 last, my response would've been "Screw them, what do they know?" So I'm not gonna get all excited because they happened to agree with me this time.
this is definately an interesting take on the issue...because i'm sure that a GREATER percentage of people here would respond in the exact same way


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

Quick Reply: Car and Driver - RX8 WINS!!!!!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.