BlueEyes

If you're talking to me, you know I only dig fat chicks :p

DARKMAZ8

For the last time the RX8 is/was not intended to replace the 7. It is a practical sport car for the street with handling that can compete in autox. Mazda's intentions for the 7 was to make an all out race car for the street. If mazda wanted they could of slapped in a 3 rotor TT into the 8 and called it a day. Instead they compromised power for reliability and comfort. Mazda wants to SELL cars and the trends are different these days. Sure the horsepower wars are still there but in order to sell the rotary as a comparible alternative to the piston engine; Mazda first has to make some kind of return on investment. To accomplish this, Mazda had to build a rotary car that appeals to a broad demographic and prove the reliability of the renesis. If Mazda is successful then we might see a few more rotary powered vehicles. Until then let us be thankful that the rx8 exists and that ford backed this vehicle for North American production. Who cares if it can't beat the sti/evo/srt/350z ect. The funny thing is that before mazda got the rotary to work efficiently, a number of other automotive companies tried and failed.

kantonm

so at what point are all of you going to stop bitching about torque? Did you test drive these cars before you bought your RX-8? I drove alot of the other cars in this category and made the choice to buy the RX-8. If you want torque then get a mustang that handles like a sled in the snow or get a subaru WRX and hope that the turbos and the AWD system dont have problems. This car a car for people who know how to drive on canyon raods where it excells......and by the way look at stats on Ferraris and other high reving exotics or F-1 cars with "no torque" and tell me that they are slow>>>>
All I am trying to say is that if the lack of torque is such a big deal then don't buy the car or sell it and get something else!

BlueEyes

Show me a ferrari with 155 ft-lb of torque

dmp

Prolly less than 155


1948 Ferrari 166 Inter Scaglietti Spyder
engine V12
valvetrain SOHC
displacement 1995 cc / 121.7 cu in
bore 60 mm / 2.36 in
stroke 58.8 mm / 2.31 in
power 104.4 kw / 140.0 bhp @ 6600 rpm

BlueEyes

you knew what I meant

dmp

I was simply being a smart-***....it's pretty bad sometimes; when people post anything, however trival, that paints the rx8 in less than 'glorious' lighting. I feel for ya..

BlueEyes

Oh I know you were being a smartass. I'm just glad I didn't make any spelling errors.

FoxTypeR

There are many cars that out perform the RX-8 (Mustang GT, 350z, S2000, WRX sti, C6 Corvette). There are many cars that out class the RX-8 (LS430, TL, G35). There are many cars that out perform and out class the RX-8 (M3/M5, SL 600/SL 65 AMG, XLR/XLR-V).

So why buy the RX-8? How about the added class that the performance category lacks? How about the RWD and truer to sport/performance feel that the more upscale category lacks? How about the mainstream affordability that the high performance luxury category lacks?

It's been said time and time again, the one word that ultimately defines the RX-8 (besides "wow" of course) is "balance." It's not the fastest, it's not the most luxurious, it's not the best combination of the two even. It is what it is, and that's a mid-/high- performance automobile with a pleasing ride quality that compromises very little rigidity and performance degradation. All with an unbeatable price for the packaging.

You have a right to your own opinion, but remember, it's just that, an opinion. Every single person in history that has purchased their own car decided at one time or another that it was the balance they were looking for. Most people still have to live with the car payments they acquire, and that's a big part of that balance. If you bought any car that you test drove and are complaining that it doesn't have the performance or comfort that you wanted, then it's your own damn fault. And if you bought any car that you didn't first test drive, then you dug your own grave.

Rotario

What is your definition of a true sports car, Blue Eyes? I'm not attempting to flame, I'm just curious.

To me, there are very few true sports cars still being made. I go back to the days of the MG, Triumph Spitfire, etc., and none of those 60's/70's "sports" cars had much in the way of torque. Hell, none had much in the way of horsepower for that matter. In order to get the car to perform, you had to drive it, rather than simply sit behind the steering wheel and push the gas pedal, like so many so-called sports cars today. The '8 has far more power than any of those sports cars did, and probably has more torque (but I'm not sure on that). Point is, the '8 has to be driven to divine its max performance, and I think that's one of the (many) reasons that I like it so very, very much.

Bill

Deslock

I think of it this way:

Size and weight of a 1.3
Output of a 2.6
Fuel economy of a 3.9

Obviously that's a generalization with limited accuracy; some vehicles are different depending on gearing, vehicle weight, tuning, etc. More realistically, the RENESIS weighs a tad more than a 1.3, puts out less torque but more power than the typical 2.6, and gets the same city MPG as a 3.9 but worse highway fuel economy (again, depending on the 3.9... yes yes, we all know the 5.7 Vette can get mid-high 20s highway, but that's not typical for an engine of that size).

Hellbreed

no you're wrong, it's better for the rotary to be revved high, just make sure you keep the oil at the right level.

Rupes

Bah, I had the extra half a quart of oil drained. :p

lucifuge

Getting back to original posting, there's a whole point of view that has not been discussed, and its arguably the most important:

Torque, in itself is irrelevant. It's the wheel torque that's important. Ie, you have to consider the gearing for the torque to make sense. Now, through aggressive gearing, mazda has been able to generate terrific wheel torque for the Rx8

Butt Dyno

2001 Camaro: 19/28
2005 GTO: 17/25
2005 CTS-V: 16/25
2005 Mustang GT: 17/25
2003 Cobra: 16/22

The advantage of a 5.7l engine is that you can have crazy overdrive gears but still have enough torque to pass semi trucks on the highway without downshifting..

john

RX4life

you are right about apples and oranges.. roataries and pistons... BUT if compared the 1.3 is the same as a 2.6L 6 cyl.... so that is y peeps complain about torque...
and its gas consumption is close to almost the 8.3 litre SRT-10 (exaggerated) so i expect torque numbers to range in the 500lb ft should do it... :p

RX4life

a 1.9 litre v12 ??? thats tiny yet big!! :D

Deslock

I knew a muscle car enthusiast who bragged about how never needing to push the peddle down all the way to accelerate, no matter what gear he was in. Why have all that power and the extra gears if you don't use them? I personally never viewed downshifting as disadvantageous. Also, the 5.7 does not produce enough wheel torque in 6th to pass in most situations (though you don't need to drop to 3rd like you do in the RX8).

Anyway, one of my points was that fuel economy isn't always proportional to engine size.... depends on many other engine and vehicle traits. There are many I-4s that get around 20/25. And it's not uncommon for the 5.7s to get lower than what they're rated for (depending on driving style and conditions, obviously).

Butt Dyno

It's not like I drive a Z06. I just think that GEARING is possibly the most obvious thing that factors into mileage. My 1.6L Miata gets pretty Corvette-like mileage on the highway, possibly because at 75 mph I'm spinning about 4000 RPM..

Yes, but
I was simply disproving that point..

Wait, what? You're telling me it's possible for a car to get UNDER EPA estimates? Are you sure? :p

rx8wannahave

You can compare them...sure, but just make sure when they start adding Turbo's & SC's to the 8 that the owners of those Turbo's & SC cars don't start saying...sure, it's because it has a Turbo. It goes both ways...

True, but for the common person looking at a RX8...9 out 10 would say it's a sports car. It seems a little snobish to call a Mustang, a GTO, and the Ferrari 460 GT (yes I know what GT means) not a sports car because they have 2+2 seating.

Let's see...it breaks, handles, is balanced, is significantly faster than most cars, it has a high performance engine, has a race car type suspension....??? hmmmm....if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and does duck things....aint it a duck?

I would love to hear what YOU think is a sports car...I would love to hear it really. What does the RX8 lack that DOES NOT make it a sports car. Please explain...

Note: Sorry that when I say FACT it bothers you, but again I would love to hear the argument WHY the RX8 is not a sports car

So sports cars only have 2 seats...if that's your definition then no, it's not but my definition is not as limited as how many passengers it can take. Again...help me understand and define a sports car for me.

Note: Blue...do you have an RX8? I'm just asking cause I really don't know...

Butt Dyno

I don't think this is what you were going for.

rx8wannahave

Breaks "like a sports car" is what I mean...further explained it stops the car "like a sports car".

StealthTL

iTrader: (1)

...he means you mean "brakes" not "falls to pieces" - subtle difference!

S :D

Umbra

I consider the 8 a lot more of a sports car than an sti or an evo or a mustang or a gto.

To me the sti and evo are rally cars not sports cars. Rally cars have decent performance but are butt ugly, a sports car has to have a certain look to it, and that look isn't a grocery getter with a big wing and a hood scoup. The evo and sti look like grocery getters that someone slapped a wing, hood, and bigger wheels on. They might be a sports cars if someone would fix their looks, simply put they have no class.

Mustang and GTO are wanna be 60 muscle cars, the "let's slap a big engine in a mid sized car and not worry about anything else like handling or braking or style".

To me a sports car follows the tradition of the early british and italian sports cars, MG's, early ferrari's, triumphs, porche. They require some finese when driving, they require learning how to get the best out of the particular car, they require more maintenace. Stomping on the gas and just expecting the car to do all the work isn't what a sports car is about, turbo's and superchargers are not what a sports car is about, horsepower and torque are not what a sports car is about, 0-60 isn't what it's about. Handling, finese, fun, style, and looks are what it's about.

Things like most of the current ferrari's, lambo's, viper, etc. are classified as super cars not sports cars. Super cars are essentially taking the sports car to a rediculous level, more horsepower than necessary, more cost than necessary, more engineering than necessary. Only a trained race car driver is going to get the best out of them, only the rich can afford them. Only a fool who isn't a race car driver or rich would buy one.

GT cars? Good engine, soft suspension, focus on comfort at the expense of handling. The car you want to go to vacation in, not the car you want to take to the twisties. Examples are 5+ series of bmw's, some of the new cadillacs, g35, tsx, most of the audis, lexus, etc.

Modern sports cars? Miata, RX8, lotus elise, corvette(borderline), s2000, 350z, boxter, beemer z cars, mr2 spyder, etc.

Deslock

Didn't what you write support that point? (maybe the way I wrote it was confusing) The Vette is rated for 28 and even in somewhat harsh highway conditions (some stop n go, lots of hills) can get mid 20s. So I call this mid-high 20s.

The other cars you mentioned are rated at 25 and do a bit worse in demanding conditions, so I wouldn't classify them as getting mid-high 20s, but mid 20s (or low-mid 20s, depending on the car and conditions).