Notices
RX-8 Media News Report the latest RX-8 related news stories here.

RX-8 listed in Motor Trend June 2008 Article 135i v EVO X

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 05-08-2008, 10:12 PM
  #1  
2005 Black RX-8 GT 6M
Thread Starter
 
CarAndDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose Area
Posts: 6,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RX-8 listed in Motor Trend June 2008 Article 135i v EVO X

The BMW 135i beat the EVO X, because it was an all around wonderful car to drive.

However, on one page, it listed other four seat sports coupes/cars for comparison to the 135i and EVO X.

The RX-8 was listed along the Audi TT 3.2 Quattro, Ford Mustang GT, and Subaru Impreza WRX STI and the two tested cars. Glad that 8 was listed, but it showed HP and torque numbers and, of course, the 8 didn't look too good on paper. But at least it was mentioned.

The column categories were engine, power, torque, layout (rwd, awd), doors/passengers and MRSP.

MT got a 135i 6-speed automatic 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and 1/4 mile in 13.3 @ 105.6MPH!!!

Last edited by CarAndDriver; 05-09-2008 at 01:05 AM.
CarAndDriver is offline  
Old 05-08-2008, 10:21 PM
  #2  
Deathwatch
 
Deathwatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Martinez California
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thats cool.
Deathwatch is offline  
Old 05-08-2008, 11:36 PM
  #3  
Toyo Kogyo => Mazda
 
boanjangnararmine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Los Angeles - Arcadia - Monterey Park - La Jolla
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i believe the 8 wins in the weight category! unless the audi is lighter
boanjangnararmine is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 12:38 AM
  #4  
Registered User
 
GeTcRuNk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i am 99.9% sure the 8 is lighter than the TT
GeTcRuNk is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 12:45 AM
  #5  
Mu ha.. ha...
 
Razz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 14,361
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
They mentioned the 8 in R&T and it said the 16x was going to have 210 to 250 HP
Razz1 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 01:02 AM
  #6  
rotary courage
 
m477's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Personally I am fine with 250hp, as long as torque and fuel economy are significantly increased, and the next generation car is lighter and better looking.
m477 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 08:37 AM
  #7  
Registered
 
alfy28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 5,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by m477
Personally I am fine with 250hp, as long as torque and fuel economy are significantly increased, and the next generation car is lighter and better looking.
Me too, i will be happy with the 250hp, as long they keep it weight light. but then again this is mazda who makes a well balance car.
alfy28 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 11:40 AM
  #8  
Registered User
 
jayk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GeTcRuNk
i am 99.9% sure the 8 is lighter than the TT

Make that 99.99%, Mazda would have to work extra hard to make an 8 heavier than an awd audi. I wouldn't put it past them, but it would be very disappointing.
jayk is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 11:54 AM
  #9  
Void Where Prohibited
 
JRichter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jayk
Make that 99.99%, Mazda would have to work extra hard to make an 8 heavier than an awd audi. I wouldn't put it past them, but it would be very disappointing.
Make that 100% sure. The Audi is some 200 lbs more.
JRichter is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 01:31 PM
  #10  
Registered Car Nut
 
RatedX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Bay Area, No. California
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Last year Car and Driver did a comparo ...350Z, Shelby Mustang, TT and RX8. The TT was a 2.0 turbo with DSG. They claimed the TT was 100 lbs lighter than the 8. If memory serves the TT was listed at 2960, 8 listed at 3060. The 8 won the comparo, TT 2nd, 350Z 3rd and Mustang last.
RatedX8 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 01:55 PM
  #11  
Void Where Prohibited
 
JRichter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^ But the TT 3.2 Quatro mentioned is 3269 lbs - mostly additional engine and AWD weight I guess.

Last edited by JRichter; 05-09-2008 at 02:01 PM.
JRichter is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 03:16 PM
  #12  
Pettit fangurl <3
 
shinka213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Aston, PA
Posts: 5,386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
how about handling? especially in the twisties??
would the 8 win out here?

i would think the mustang would be last in this category...
shinka213 is offline  
Old 05-09-2008, 06:58 PM
  #13  
Registered Car Nut
 
RatedX8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Bay Area, No. California
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yeah, the v6 quattro would definitely be heavier. The 8 was picked first bcuz it was more fun to drive, outstanding handling. The handling on the Mustang was compared to a live axle truck from the 70's.
RatedX8 is offline  
Old 05-10-2008, 09:28 AM
  #14  
Registered
 
77mjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
You would think the next rotary car with the 16X HAS to have at least 250hp. Why would they develop a new rotary engine and have the same power as the current one. Couple that with direct injection, more low end, and maybe a little lighter and you have a winner.

I also saw that the new 370Z may start around $35,000. If that is the case, they are pricing themselves out of the market for an affordable sports car. That new RX7 or whatever it becomes is supposed to start under $30,000.
77mjd is offline  
Old 05-10-2008, 01:11 PM
  #15  
Registered User
 
raspyrx7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2600lb, 16X, 260hp, and 22/28 mpg would be the sweetest.
raspyrx7 is offline  
Old 05-10-2008, 11:20 PM
  #16  
DaveCm
 
DaveCM203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Central North Carolina
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
^+1 That would be hot.
DaveCM203 is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 10:33 AM
  #17  
Void Where Prohibited
 
JRichter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatedX8
The handling on the Mustang was compared to a live axle truck from the 70's.
lol... is the live axle actually better for dragging, or is that just an excuse Ford uses to cut costs?
JRichter is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 10:44 AM
  #18  
DGAF
iTrader: (1)
 
Rootski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JRichter
lol... is the live axle actually better for dragging, or is that just an excuse Ford uses to cut costs?
Cars with independent rear suspension are prone to wheel-hop and can be penalized in regulated drag-racing.
Rootski is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 01:26 PM
  #19  
Registered User
 
Shoafb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RatedX8
yeah, the v6 quattro would definitely be heavier. The 8 was picked first bcuz it was more fun to drive, outstanding handling. The handling on the Mustang was compared to a live axle truck from the 70's.
The Mustang is not nearly that bad. Someone hasn't driven a 70's truck in a while....
Shoafb is offline  
Old 05-12-2008, 02:07 PM
  #20  
Void Where Prohibited
 
JRichter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shoafb
The Mustang is not nearly that bad. Someone hasn't driven a 70's truck in a while....
That's what I was thinking but no matter how well it handles, I still couldn't buy a sports car from this century w/o an independent rear suspension.
JRichter is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 06:44 AM
  #21  
Registered
 
Robonaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shoafb
The Mustang is not nearly that bad. Someone hasn't driven a 70's truck in a while....
It may not be that bad, but, trust me, the Mustang handles like utter crap compared the RX8. "Big and bloaty" sums it up nicely.

As for the live rear-axle, my understanding is that it is there to cut costs.
Robonaut is offline  
Old 05-13-2008, 12:07 PM
  #22  
Registered User
 
Shoafb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robonaut
It may not be that bad, but, trust me, the Mustang handles like utter crap compared the RX8. "Big and bloaty" sums it up nicely.

As for the live rear-axle, my understanding is that it is there to cut costs.
You could also say the 8 is slow as a snail compared to the mustang. But that doesn't make the 8 as slow as a snail.
Shoafb is offline  
Old 05-22-2008, 02:11 AM
  #23  
Touge Chaser
 
whitebeau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
how about...

How about:

Same MPG. Additional 6gallons to the tank. Near bulletproof oil delivery & cooling so noon of the 03-08 gremlins occur?

6gallons totalling about 20.5? overall should net around 340 Miles to a trip, which i think is acceptable. Realistically I don't think we'll see a better mpg unless they start using a hybrid type technology similar to what F1 is using... electric for ontap torque, and charges during breaking & coasting...
whitebeau is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 02:17 PM
  #24  
Registered
 
solo8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vienna, VA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shoafb
You could also say the 8 is slow as a snail compared to the mustang. But that doesn't make the 8 as slow as a snail.
Of course you'd have to qualify that the Mustang was faster "on a straight line" because you'd kill yourself trying to drive as fast as an RX-8 in the twists.

I guess Mustangs would be great any place where the roads are only straight and there are no turns. Though you could probably just make a go-kart too.
solo8 is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 03:00 PM
  #25  
Registered User
 
Shoafb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by solo8
Of course you'd have to qualify that the Mustang was faster "on a straight line" because you'd kill yourself trying to drive as fast as an RX-8 in the twists.

I guess Mustangs would be great any place where the roads are only straight and there are no turns. Though you could probably just make a go-kart too.

and again, by that logic you can say the 8 would be great on roads that only have curves, no straights.

I thought the 8 was pretty confy cruising down the highway though.

Have you driven the new mustang?

they are 2 different cars, no need to rag on one or the other. Both do what they do.

Last edited by Shoafb; 05-28-2008 at 03:21 PM.
Shoafb is offline  


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: RX-8 listed in Motor Trend June 2008 Article 135i v EVO X



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 PM.