Ike

That's some stunning proof you have there. Are you Rotorockets new screen name since he didn't have the ***** to keep up the post he just deleted that included calling me several names? Now you don't even have the ***** to use your own username?

BaronVonBigmeat

The last 7 was definitely a faster car, but it also had problems and sold for...$37~$38k? Which in today's dollars would be somewhere around Corvette prices. You can buy a buttload of mods for $15k.

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

Wtf happened to my post.

I'm sorry Ike.

I really am. I honestly don't know what happened.
Here it is:

Ike, you ignorant ****.

An Accord V6 will not "pull away" from an 8 on the highway.

wtf is wrong with you man?

Oh, and here's something funny I saw today. I saw a 78 Bonneville dust, and I mean DUST, an 06 EVO.

Oh, snap.

They were racing for pinkslips.

SomeGuy_sg

If you wanna compare than compare apples to apples. The last NA rotary engine was the Gen2 rx7 with 147ish hp. I would think the rx8 is very much a head of that .

DrDiaboloco

You're not helping your argument by being RIDICULOUS.

The only way that happened was if the 78 B'ville was so heavily modified that you shouldn't represent it as a 78 B'ville anymore. I mean... Even the '78 CORVETTE only had, what, 175hp? Big-block Pontiacs of that vintage (or perhaps slightly earlier), the ones with big, honkin' 400cid engines, didn't make anywhere near the horsepower of an Evo and outweighed the Evo by a thousand pounds (I'm guessing on that last one, but that's not a big guess).

Jus' keepin' it REAL.

Hornet

Slight correction...the FC had 147 hp up till '88, the '89 through '91 models were rated at 160 hp. I know, not much of a difference but I figured I'd share that!


As for the interesting 1/4mile argument I'm late for, IMO there is flaw with the argument of higher trap = faster car. The fact of the matter is that if you look at the numbers when 2 cars trap at the same speed (let's say 95 mph) if one did it 14 seconds and the other did it in 15 seconds the first car I would think would be faster considering it accelerated to 95 mph a full second quicker than the second car. I guess the trick would actually be to see what the first cars speed is at 15 seconds to determine which is actually faster. For all we know at the 15 seconds it takes the second car to achieve the 95 mph the first car might now be at 110 mph! As mentioned before there are more variables but this is my logic for this argument. If there is something to disprove my logic then I'm ready to learn!

Ike

You're confusing fast with quick. In drag racing terms fast refers to a cars trap speed, quickness refers to a cars ET. If you see two cars have the same trap speed but one has a quicker ET it's usually traction related. So if you take two cars with an identical trap speed and run them from a roll where traction isn't an issue they will run about even with one another. On the other hand, if you take two cars with an identical ET but one has a faster trap speed it will pull away from the car with the lower trap speed in the same rolling start scenario.

Take the Accord for instance, since Rotorocket is getting so butthurt about it. The Accord V6 manual ideally runs mid 14s, pretty much the same as the RX-8. However, the Accord traps in the high 90s and is hindered from a stop because its FWD. Put the two of them on the highway side by side, punch it at the same time, and the Accord will pull away from the RX-8. Even though they run the 1/4 mile in the same time Accord will pass the RX-8 after the 1/4 mile. If you compare Magazine tests the Accord will get from 0-130 about 4 seconds faster than the RX-8. So theorhetically, if the Accord had a bad start and ran a 15 second 1/4 mile and the cars kept going after the 1/4 mile the Accord would catch and pass the RX-8 even though the RX-8 was quicker through the 1/4 mile.

yiksing

I agree, displacement is the key when you go high end.

Ike

Doesn't have much to do with displacement, it's just good ole horsepower to the wheels (for the most part).

jwitzer

1993 Mazda RX-7 R1, CYM: $29,900.

Those "problems" were easily corrected, under warranty.

Other "issues" were also easily corrected through the aftermarket. Stock 255Hp to 450 with less than $5000 in mods.

Do that with the RX-8... You can't. Not its intent...

But it is a much better environment to be in than the RX-7 and fits my current needs so much better. I love this car, but it is not perfect and it is not fast. But it is fast enough, for now.

conmeng

i have the rx8 and my friend had the rx7 fd... rx8 is just pretty for nothing... got pulled on launch after second gear... then i race with my other buddy with the mitsubishi eclipse turbocharge... that shiet creeeps up on me after 1/4 miles... rx8 no damage!! and no its not about the driver... we switch cars and same results according to the car... piece of shiet broke on me too... fuuuckk imma turbocharge that shiet... and see if it'll change my mind to trash that shiet into junk garage...

Ike

Oi...

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

Don't anyone tell Ike, but I didn't really see a Bonneville dust an EVO.

Hornet

I'm not really convinced yet! I have a copy of the March '06 Road and Track and there is one particular comparison in it with 7 cars. In this test 2 cars (an Audi A4 2.0T Quattro and a BMW 325xi) both do the 1/4 mile in 15.0 seconds. The A4 traps at 93.3 mph and the 325xi trapped at 91.4 mph. Now in this comparison there is another interesting number, the 0-100 results! They both took 18.0 seconds! In fact, by looking at the difference in the time they took to do the 0-90 and the 0-100 the car with the lower trap goes from 90 to 100 in .5 seconds less time. Both cars are 6 spd manual transmissions. Now I'm no scientist but IMO something about those numbers suggests trap speeds cannot determine what is going to happen from a roll from the same speed. What gives?

Raptor2k

stfu

rotarygod

Nope it's not him. They are 2 separate people. I checked.

Ike

It's not an absolute, and there are certainly other factors, gearing being one. The WRX for instance has a very tall 4th gear so once it completes the 1/4 mile and you have to shift to 4th it will be passed in some cases by a car that will trap the same. Trap speed doesn't always indicate what will happen but it's a pretty good indicator.

That test also had some screwy results (pretty common for road and track), the MS6 fell on its face because of issues with the car, it's also not out of the realm of possibilities that the A4 had a little heatsoak (can't remember the temp. during those tests) and the 3 series started to edge ahead as a result of that. Also, the A4 requires a shift around 90mph, perhaps the 3 series has to be shifted a bit before 90.

Lastly, you really need more than 0-100 to see the effects when the cars are trapping in the low to mid 90s.

Ike

Thanks RG, just seemed odd when Rotorocket posted an inflamatory post and then deleted it and that all the sudden that was in its place. So, I heard you mods can see deleted posts, is this true?

Wurmfist

I just wanted to bring up a point everyone always seems to miss. In-Car speedometers have errors on them and they get worse the faster you go. Say for instance your speedo reads 55mph and your actual speed is 52. That's a HUGE difference at high-speeds. That makes a indicated 170mph on a speedo actually 160.7 mph (if it was 200mph its actually 189mph). And usually speedos are even more off than the conservative numbers here.

RotoRocket

iTrader: (1)

Ike, take your medication. Everyone loves an EVO.

jwitzer

Which is why I never quote actual top speed in my FD when asked. All I say, truthfully, is that I don't know. The speedometer only goes to 180 and it was seriously buried. I sometimes add that a friend of mine with the exact same mods did a radar-gun run on a private road (*ahem*) of 204. Does that mean I did 204? Doubtful, the car was still pulling, slightly. Did I do 180? I'm certain of it. I would GUESS I was in the 190 range since the speedo was wrapped about 20-25 mph (estimate) past 180... almost straight down.

But going fast in a straight line is BORING. ...just like NASCAR.

It's far more challenging, interesting, entertaining to try to blast through the turn 3/4/5 complex at Sebring or the esses at Road Atlanta as fast as possible than to top out at the back straight at either location at 160+. Those long straights are where you get to relax, check your guages and belts, and breathe.

Gee, keep the wheel straight and your foot down. How hard is that?

rotarygod

Maybe.

Distortdguitar14

Watched a video ( you guys have probably seen it ) rx8 being driven at i think laguana race way and the drive gets all the way up to 174 and looks like he could still go faster.

( dont know if anything was done to the car, doesnt look like it, but then again can't see under the hood )

Elara

I'm thinking this thread has outlived its usefulness (if it ever actually had any, which I doubt..)