BlueEyes

The topic has been covered countless times in other threads. This is more interesting.

bascho

This is the funniest thread on the board today

bascho

Ike, as someone who appreciates performance, I am surprised you would bash the VTX. The VTX can waste a Harley in the performance catagory (except the V-Rod which most Harley loyalists disregard as a "real" Harley). Personally, I wouldn't buy either though......I'm a Victory guy. In fact, I am going to be getting a Victory Vegas Jackpot in two months.

Roaddemon

I ride mostly with Harleys. A cruiser is a cruiser regardless of brand. I just bought what fits me best. Harley's are too small for me. Big is better. I'm buying a Hayabusa next. 200mph sport machine. All cars are slow to me. You guys don't know the meaning of the word FAST.

Cattywampus

my r.c car hit 0-77mph in 4.8 seconds. And that was on street tires. I love this little thing

Ike

If you want performance you don't buy a cruiser though.

BlueEyes

Why would you buy a Hayabusa? (Serious answer please)

And, I have driven a fair share of sport bikes, and race cars. I think I know what fast is.

For those that don't know, the Germans have succesfully characterized fast. It looks like this.

Ike

So you ride mostly with Harleys yet the mojority knows your wannabe is better?

Roaddemon

Ahhh, but is it a dailey driver?

Cattywampus

not right now. i store it for the winter. actually I had it out last week. I bought new slicks. Hoping to get a better time. I doubt it but its worth a shot.

Ike

My kart can smoke your RC car

Roaddemon

The hayabusa is low,comfortable, lightweight high power/weight machine and I like the way it looks. It's serious sport cruising.

Cattywampus

. bring it.

BlueEyes

Ah, I thought you were picking it as a sport bike. I guess it makes sense as a sport cruiser.

Ike

Its already been broughten.

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

I am not about to research which ones on your list there can hang with the RX-8 in straight line (let alone track performance).

But I'll bet maybe 8 or 9 out of the 36 can truly "hang" with the RX-8 in the 0-60 or 1/4 mile, and of those, 6 or 7 would also top the 350Z.

Why would you effectuate such insincere and time-consuming posts?

Ike

It took me 5 minutes to make that list... There are 8 or 9 Chryslers alone that will not just hang with but beat the 8, 4 subarus can do the same, 6 if you include the wagons. We're already over 10 with just 2 car manufacturers...

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

Since you posted that original list, please do specifically identify which ones on it best the RX-8 in either 0-60, 1/4 mile, or skidpad times.

I'll anxiously await for you to vindicate your earlier response.

Ike

No vindication needed, if you want to know which are faster and which are just close knock yourself out, I'm going out with some friends now

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

jwitzer

OK, getting the thread back on topic, as someone who has owned an 1993 CYM FD R1, a 2004, and a 2005 RX-8 GT 6SP, the answer to the question of which is better (and to most of the Ike v. world arguement) is very, very simple:

It depends.

The RX-8 is a much NICER car to be in than the RX-7. The RX-7 was both built for lightness and rushed to market to beat the Supra TT. This resulted in a spartan (hell, I'll say it: cheap) interior. But it was perfectly functional for its purpose.

The RX-7 was a sports car. The RX-8 is a GT. (And the Evo is an econobox with boost.)

The RX-8 handles, surprisingly, about as well as the RX-7 did stock. But the RX-7 was easily converted to something the RX-8 (and probably the Evo) will never achieve in real-world or on-track performance.

How fast? I never had problems with modified Vipers, 911 Turbos, Vettes of any kind, or M3s at tracks like Sebring and Road Atlanta. The Vipers could pull harder out of a corner, but were trucks everywhere else on the track.

Numbers? G-Tech had me 0-60 in 3.2, 60-0 in 80 ft, and 1.28 lateral G. This was in my daily driver, with the stock sequential turbos, full A/C, all interior, hell, even a car-phone kit. See the mods at http://www.geocites.com/jwitzer.

The RX-8 0-60 is listed as 5.9. The RX-7 was 5.3 (but most ran 5.1). The Evo is 4.9.

The quality of the power in the rotary is, of course, in another league alltogether. Smooth as a V12 and willing to rev past 12,000 with little modification. The RX-8 is woefully lacking in power and no amount of defence can fix that. About 300 to 320 would make this a really nice all-arounder, but it is still the best day-to-day, high quality, fun, sporty (not sports) car on the market.

With a penchant for sportive driving, and a 2 year old daughter, I cross-shopped the M3, the G35 Coupe, the Mustang GT, and the GTO. The M3 did not have enough rear legroom, the G35 seats were far too flat and the rear suspension design is pathetic, the Mustang and GTO are far too crude and low quality to be considered.

Why no Evo or STI? Again, quality. I was not interested in econoboxes with spastic engines. But I have no doubt that they would smoke the RX-8 straight line or many curvy roads... until they broke.

Most of the cars on Ike's list, while they may be quicker in some straight-line test than the RX-8 (many of which I call into question), none of them have the whole package, especially at this price.

But the RX-8 needs more power to be taken seriously. A small supercharger should have been an option. Mazda has done just about everything that could be done with a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary. But more is needed. A turbo would not fit the character of the car.

There are many faster cars, but none were better for me.

Nemesis8

iTrader: (3)

Well said

saturn

Ok, I may just be displaying my ignornance, but is this right? That's a McLaren F1 type number. Your site says this:


Did you mean 4.2? Lemme know.

skhmund

"0-60 5.9 RX8
155mph top speed"

is that a stock 8?

DrDiaboloco

Fine, but surely you understand why the question is being asked.