DreRX8

Not performance wise--real world use it is Rob.

khtm

Considering inflation, the $37,000 you paid for the RX-7 in '92 would actually be about $48,000 in '04! That's makes the gap near $14,000...yeouch.

DreRX8

And worth every red cent--I love the 3rd Gen.

Rob Tomlin

No argument there!

I do miss the way the twin turbos could knock your head back in the seat when they kicked in.

But the RX-8 is so much more refined than the FD, it overcomes much of the performance shortcomings with respect to speed.

I also prefer the handling characteristics of the 8 over the FD.

Senseny

This is such a hard question because I love my third gen. But I will say without a doubt that if I ever have money issues the FD will go before the Rx-8. Sure the 8 isn't as good looking IMO and isn't the raw performer that the FD is, but it looks damn good and performs damn well and its much more practical and refined than the 7--plus it has a warranty.

JeRKy 8 Owner

I neverwould have known how well the Rx8 really handleduntil I allowed a lunatic relative to drive it whileI was in the passenger. Hetold me it had amazing handlingand I said I never really noticed so he responded to that by taking a turn at 60 mph w/o even making the tires screech. After I wasdone cursinghim out and ejecting him fromthe driver seat since I thought he was going to crash my car -- I never drovethe car the same after that night. Looking back I owe that sonof a bitch a lot of gratitude b/c if it werent forthe amazing handling I wouldprobably have grown bored of the car by now. Now a days Im alwayslooking for a new twisty roadto drive on and Im driving totest the limits of my cars handling on the roadsI usually drive on. Its onlya matter of time before I go over the line spin out and collide into something. For now fortune has been on my side

zevans

Well, it's lucky Hachi preferred the 8, otherwise he'd have to change his name to Shichi... :D

I'm not sure the price has changed much in real terms, if you compare it with performance cars. The Z, for instance, was 33k Sterling in 1989 - which is pushing 60k in today's money. Yet the 350 is today ~25k for the GT spec here. Same story with Porsche - the lowly Boxster would kick the *** of a lot of early 90s Porsche models.

So yes, the price has come down a hell of a lot in real terms - but I think that's just true of 200+ coupes in general, rather than the 8 specifically.

That looks a fantastic road - I used plenty similar in Europe last week. The problem in the UK is interesting roads like that generally have such poor surfacing, hard setups will be flipped off it in short order. I'm sure that's why the rally homologation cars are so popular here. :D

With regards to raw performance - the 7 would -feel- faster even if it were not because of the nature of turbo power delivery. An NA will never kick you in the pants in-gear as a turbo does, but that doesn't mean it's slower overall. The 8 is is consistently good, as opposed to laggy then RIDICUCLOUS. :D (Not been in a 7 but I'm assuming it feels like other 276hp Jap cars)

Look at the standing quarter figures - it doesn't look like there's much in it from the times, but the 7 will be going ~10mph quicker at the end of the quarter. That kind of implies the 8 must have been quicker off the line, which implies better agility.

You're comparing a turbo and an NA here which is never easy. I chose an 8 because I got tired of monster turbo cars catching me out. The 8 doesn't run out of steam until about 100mph anyway so it's plenty for back roads. The amount of power you deliver to the wheels is almost directly related to the position of your right foot so it's a hell of a lot easier to balance through and coming out of corners...

DreRX8

The 3rd Gen is not that "laggy" due to the sequential turbocharged setup--the problem with that setup is that it adds to the complexity under the hood--can anybody say vacuum hoses--that should touch a nerve with FD owners, I know I had a time with em.

Senseny

The FD does not just feel faster, it is faster--significantly faster. As far as lag is concerned, that has been addressed well in the earlier post. I am not trying to be a jerk, but go out and drive an FD before commenting on its acceleration versus an 8's. BTW, the third gen rx7 was the fastest production Japanese car for a long time because of power to weight ratio--its very light compared to the other Japanese "super" cars.

foxman

Gee, it is faster, one only has to read the entire thread to find this out, both "feel" and "significant" are subjective and relative.

0-60: 5.5 secs (RX-7), 6.1 secs (RX-8)
1/4 mi: 14 secs (RX-7), 14.6 secs (RX-8)
Slalom: 66.4 mph (RX-7), 68.4 mph (RX-8)

TJLack

i never drove an rx-7 (though i lusted after one when in college) but two things i really liked about this thread as far as the rx-8:

1) analogy to roller coasters - I've had two passengers riding with me around tight curves make spontaneous reference to feeling like "riding a rail - just like a metal coaster"

2) statement that the car's limits are beyond the drivers - I've told more than one inquirer that the RX-8's limits are beyond my courage

i do love the fact that the rx-8 is a comfortable daily driver in addition to being an impressive performance car. i don't think it is a better performance car than the rx-7, but definintely a better overall car with some modest compromise on the performance side.

DreRX8

both of those numbers are conservative foxman--the 3rd Gen R1/R2 were capable of 4.9-5.0 second 0-60 and mid to high 13s in the 1/4.

foxman

Of course they were, most everything in life is a range. And some people have run the 8 a hair below 6.0 in stock form with a very precise launch.

But you have to pick something consistent as a basis for comparison, so why not Road and Track? If not Road and Track, it depends on which FD you are talking about. Unless you are talking about an auto, they are all faster!

1993 Mazda RX-7 5.5 14.0
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 5.3 13.9
1994 Mazda RX-7 5.3 14.0
1994 Mazda RX-7 Touring 6.0 14.5 (auto)
1995 Mazda RX-7 R2 5.0 14.0

Senseny

Most magazine times (and I am not looking them up again--C&D, R&T, Motortrend, etc) have the various FDs doing 0-60 in the 5.2 to 5.3 range and I have seen the 0-60 at 4.9 in some. The quarter is usually run in the 13.8 range by drivers in stock FDs. These are also numbers that can be repeated in the real world. Try to get those 6.0 second 0-60s in the Rx8 and it takes clutch drops that will kill your clutch--quickly. All of the magazines that have run those kinds of numbers in the 8 add the disclaimer that they used a clutch drop that will cause damage. With a more normal launch, the numbers drop by .5 seconds in most cases.
My FD is far from stock, and therefore far faster than my 8, but I also remember it in stock form and trust me, it is much faster. Significantly is a proper word.

DreRX8

well said foxman. Point taken

RX-Hachi

I was Shichi (or Nana if you like), see my sig below. But I guess I grew up a little and turned into a Hachi :D

Anyway, have owned the FD RX-7 too, and adore 'em both but for different reasons. Without a doubt the FD is faster, the turbos make it "feel" even faster. But for everyday driving, and this is where I do 99% of my driving, the RX-8 is fast enough. My last car was an E36 US-spec M3, which is also suppose to be slightly faster than the RX-8. But they "feel" about the same to me (as long as I keep the RX-8 in its upper rev band).

IMO, looks and speed are the two things that the RX-7 is better at (and looks are very subjective). But the RX-8 is equal or better in just about everything else. That's the reason I did the R&T magazine like comparison, speed isn't everything (well, maybe for some it is).

On the other hand, if and when a 280-300hp FI Renesis powered RX-8 comes along, I'll be waiting in line with the rest of us. :D

Senseny

Remember, I said I would take the 8 over the 7 for a variety of reasons. I just had to expound on the acceleration issue. I don't think its that close, therefore I keep the 7 for the time being.

Rob Tomlin

Yeah, the FD is definitely faste than the 8, both subjectively and objectively. And by quite a bit.

They are both great cars in their own right, that's for sure.

scratchjunkie

i can agree with you david. from driving my friends 8 around vs my fd, i feel safer tackling turns in the 8. theres videos of an 8 running with a fd and the 8 enters corners faster than the fd, but once the fd clears the apex it takes off like no other. so counting for speed its not a fair game comparing the 8 to 7. the 7 responds well to mods and i heard that bolt ons for the 8 dont do squat (learned this at racing beat meet after 7stock). all in all for daily driving the 8 is more suitable and can be an awesome weekend track car with no worries like the 7 does.

Rob Tomlin

I definitely agree about the FD responding well to easy bolt on mods vs. the 8 which is just the opposite. I felt a huge difference in the FD with just a downpipe (which resulted in removal of the pre-cat) and catback exhaust.

Basically it looks like Mazda squeezed about as much performance from the Renesis as possible.

scratchjunkie

ouch...anyone watch best motoring rotary reborn ?

RX-Hachi

Let's not drag this thread through the mud with yet another discussion on the debut battle results. I have the DVD and the BM reviewers really like the RX-8. It compared well against the RX-7 in the video and they picked it second to the S2000 in terms of handling feel during the autocross section.

Rob Tomlin

Yeah, I think the BM thing has been beaten to death.

zevans

Just to go back to the "feel" thing...

I didn't say the 8 was faster than the 7 - it isn't. I meant that IF they were equally performant, the 7 would still feel faster. So, with the 7, it's a double whammy - it's faster and it would feel faster in any case.

I was at a 1/4 mile event here in the UK on Sunday, where the ReWorx 7 was running in the 10s... :D

slllygrl10

I want to see the video