This post has gotten far too civilized... :p

 

I visit a lot of automotive forums, and of course trashing each other's cars is a popular activity in most of them. I guess it's fun, but I don't see much point to it. The RX-8, STi, and Evo are all great cars; just because I can only afford one of them doesn't mean I have to hate the other two. Living in snow country, purchasing a STi is very appealing, even though I'll probably never race anyone. (All three cars will need appropriate winter tires.) And this is the main purpose of the Evo and STi, to ourperform the competition. Every other consideration is secondary. So, for everyday driving the RX-8 is probably the best choice of the three, but I wouldn't criticize anyone for choosing otherwise (well, not much).

 

I have been driving an RX-8 for the past three months so I know how it behaves.
However, it is going back to Mazda on the repurchase offer. Please read the loong thread in the Tech Garage section about canzoomer's conclusions for my reason.

For the past month I also have an Evo in my garage, so I know how it behaves as well.
You can argue about looks all you want, but when it comes to a personal preference, the Evo today is a better car for me than today's RX-8. Hopefully, Mazda will fix the ECU problem that canzoomer has spent weeks proving is the cause of the low power and mileage. At that time, in MY opinion, the two cars will be equivalent on everyday performance.

So for all you Evo bashers, I have driven both long enough to have an informed opinion and have voted with my wallet for the Evo. Your mileage may vary :-).
For the originator of the thread, please drive all three cars (STi, Evo and RX-8), then go home and think about what you like about each. All three are fine cars and you won't regret either purchase. It just depends what you are willing to trade for what.

All right, let the flames begin.

 

no matter what canzoomer proves about ECU, the numbers are the same. 0-60 in 5.9 and 1/4 mile in 14.5.

Check the competition forum for proof.

 

Not true. The numbers were on 100 octane race gas and a Japanese spec ECU.

 

I don't think it was a Japanese spec ECU but it was on race gas which showed more HP on the Dyno. Regardless those numbers fall far short of what the STi and EVO are capable of.

Ike

P.S. I was just kidding about this post being too civilized :D

 

Where does he say its a JSpec ECU? I dont see that. How would he get that? He believes with 100 octane he can maybe get 14.2 seconds. He got 14.6 with a major error. In time, more and more people who actually know how to drive are gonna hit the track and all get mag numbers and you'll be drivin youre slightly faster but extremely ugly turbo-charged econobox.

 

Well the STi numbers are falling far short of what many american muscle cars are capable of.

 

1-1.5 sec in the quarter mile is NOT slightly faster, in the quarter miles that's huge.

 

Name me one car car under 50K american or otherwise (stock) that will outrun the STi in the 1/4 mile other than the 03 Cobra. If you don't know there are a few people running very high 12s stock, and a others running 13.1 and 13 flat.

Ike

 

I saw rxdaniel's numbers and they were in the mid-15's. JudgeIto's seemed to be based on indicated speed with race gas. No time slips posted there. The Jspec ECU was for the pre-production press cars, not the unverified, setl-timed, red-light to red-light, speedometer-measured posts RussellP is presenting as evidence.

I'll believe the meticulous canzoomer, thank you. RussellP, I believe you read the entire thread at the competition forum; how come you presented only your side of the argument without the qualifications that are rife there? Another "fair and balanced" viewpoint, no doubt.

 

It was rxdaniel's first time on a track and he got 15.2.

When a turbo is available for the 8 there will be no advantage in the evo. And a turbo is inevitable.

 

Once again you prove you know little about modded cars. And comparing a modded car to a stock car is just stupid. Take the same amount you put into a turbo for the 8 and put it into an EVO or an STi and you still lose by a large margin.

 

RussellP, do you own an RX-8 or are you just culling others' opinions on this forum and presenting them as your own? Or is it a 15 minute test drive that is the basis of your informed opinion?

 

I own an rx8, ******

 

Ike, you spoke too soon :P


Guy, keep it civil- this thread has come very close to being closed several times now, and it's heading in the wrong direction again.

 

The new up and coming GTR has been pushed back to 2007, I am very sad about that news.

BTW some of the fastest GTRs are still twin Turbo. For example the Top Secret Car:

 

I have to agree with you on that.

 

Maybe no advantage in straight-line acceleration. Not on handling and breaking the Evo is still better.

Power without control is useless

 

Very sad news indeed, and yes there still are some very very fast TTs out there.

Ike

 

Ops, after looking at the photo closely I think what I thought was the second turbo is actually the exhaust side of the turbine. I thought I remember Top Secret had Twin Turbo, they might have changed their set up.

 

All I know is a lot of the sub 10 sec Skylines out there are large single HKS/Garrett turbos. Though there are probably some TTS out there running about as fast.

Ike

 

Sorry I had to share this, it has nothing to do with the topic but I can't resist.



More pics here: http://www.donguri.sakura.ne.jp/~pow...s301/index.htm

 

Heh that's pretty sick. Engine swaps on the old Z's are fairly common. I've got a video of a 280Z with a LT1 swap outrunning a Gixxer 600 from a stop.

 

If I remember correctly the GTR = Twin Turbo (at least up to R33 body style when I left) GTS-T= Single Turbo GTS-t2.5 was either bigger engine single turbo or all wheel drive single turbo and GTs was the non-turbo. You couldn't tell the difference between the GTR and GTS-t if the emblems were changed (very common) other than performance and looking at the engine.