They got more respectable numbers than C&D....about what I thought this car should be.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7180

 

Thats dissappointing. according to my Road and track magazine from 2003, the 1st gen rx8 is faster.

2003 RX8

0-60 5.9
0-100 15.9
1/4 mile 14.5 @ 95.6 mph

huh, how did that happen

 

WOW IMPRESIVE NUMBERS LOL!!!

hope the new 16x will come out alot better hopefully

 

Told you the new one is slower.

You should check out how slow it stops too!

 

I bet a bunch of you guys don't remember that in 2003, R&T tested the RX8 with original 250hp tune before it was change to comply with EPA.

The trap speed is almost the same. The R3 didn't lose much... just sounds like they didn't launch it as hard. Braking numbers are little disappointing. I'd be more pissed about that.

 

I'd like to see a comparison.

 

lol, oh 14.5 14.8 whatever. Our cars are no rocket ship regardless

 

https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-media-news-11/09-rx-8-r3-short-take-road-test-car-driver-160109/

There is the other thread with the C&D review. They had it stop at 153 feet from 70-0 mph so maybe Road and Track was using an already abused test vehicle.

 

problem with CD is no one uses that metric.

Stopping is based upon 60 to zero and 80 to zero.

Throw in CD 70 to zero and how do you compare?

 

Easy, you just compare it to the other cars they tested the 70-0 test to. I actually prefer the 70-0. I've gotten accustomed to it after reading CD for so many years. 153 feet is definitely excellent breaking performance. The Audi R8, for example, stopped at 157 feet.

 

Thanks for the link. At least they are still giving space to a car that essentially came out in 2004.

 

^^ very true.

 

I think Car and Driver sucks. Their testing sucks. I wouldn't trust anything to be consistent from them. They rung a good time out of the GTO (0-60 in 4.8 and 13.3 @ 107mph), but I wouldn't brag about it because you can't take that number and compare it to the numbers from other cars they've test... too inconsistent. If R&T posts a number, you can replicate it, and when comparing cars in their summary table, you have a very good idea of how each car will do against each other real world.

 

Hmm, Interesting..

 

The only mag I consider worthy to read is Road and Track, ever thing else has gone to ****. Well everything else in the states, still love evo, and top gear.

 

Nonsense, all three major mags tested the 8 at those times (5.9/14.5) into 2005.

It's probably just green engines, C&D showed that the rotary needs many miles to break in to produce those still mediocre times.

But fact is, the R3 shows no improvements anywhere.

 

Only in terms of power.

 

Aside from slightly improved handling on only the R3, and blue tooth and plastic **** all over the front bumper, what else has been improved?

Aside from a more expensive price.