The Contenders::evillol:
Nissan 350z:grinyes:
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX:iceslolan
Mazda RX-8:rofl:

The coarses::banghead:
Drag:smooch:
Road coarse:naughty:

Which cars do you think would win in what event?:eek:

PS: Each car should be the newest year like the Lance EVO is 2006, etc.:icon16:

Play GT4 to see the road course times ;)

drag times should be very easy to find.

1/4 times:
350z: mid/high 13's
evo: low/mid 13's
rx-8: mid/low 14's

Nissan 350z
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX
Mazda RX-8

Road course:
Evo IX
350Z
RX8

Drag:
Evo IX
350Z
RX8

Road course:
Evo IX
350Z
RX8

Drag:
Evo IX
350Z
RX8

Endurance Race:
350z
Evo (DNF Transmission)
RX8 (DNF Engine Exploded)

The 350Z would probably break its front suspension as well, so neither of the three would finish. I haven't heard anything about Renesis going boom, by the way, where did you hear that?

Endurance Race:
350z
Evo (DNF Transmission)
RX8 (DNF Engine Exploded)
How many Nissans have won LeMans? How many Mitsus? How many rotary powered Mazdas?

0, 0, and 7 (1 overall, 6 class) respectively. Mazda, with 31 rotary powered LeMans entries, has a 67% reliability rate. In the history of the race only Honda has a better reliability rate (100%) but they've only entered 3 cars in the race.

short drag
evo
z
rx-8

long drag
z
evo
rx8

track
evo
z
rx-8

the "track" obviously depends on the type of track and how fast or technical it is.

The RX8 could definitely win on a tight technical course

How many Nissans have won LeMans? How many Mitsus? How many rotary powered Mazdas?

0, 0, and 7 (1 overall, 6 class) respectively. Mazda, with 31 rotary powered LeMans entries, has a 67% reliability rate. In the history of the race only Honda has a better reliability rate (100%) but they've only entered 3 cars in the race.

Audis and Fords have won LeMans as well, they arn't particularly reliable either.

In all fairness I'm just making a generalization on rotary engines based on the RX-7. I honestly havn't heard anything good or bad about RX-8 reliability.

The 350Z would probably break its front suspension as well, so neither of the three would finish. I haven't heard anything about Renesis going boom, by the way, where did you hear that?

they are in and out of the local mazda dealership needing new engines with under 20k miles. ages ranging from 25 year olds who romp on them to 60 year old men who wanted a sports car with backseats. alot of upset buyers to say the least.

performance model 350Z could hang with an EVO on a non technical track, otherwise the EVO wins in every category.

BTW: im still trying to figure out what LeMans has to do with this comparison.

im still trying to figure out what LeMans has to do with this comparison.

didn't you know?
the cars we buy for the road are exactly like the ones they race in le man, only with different bodies, differernt chassis, different suspension, different engines.....

that's the real reason why honda sucks; because they are crap in F1.
:shakehead

BTW: im still trying to figure out what LeMans has to do with this comparison.
Really? Which word did you fail to comprehend, "endurance" or "race"?

I'm with most everyone else here. Short of a small autocross track or a very twisty downhill run the RX-8 is going to lose to the 350Z and/or Evo in a race (given drivers of similar skill) unless that race is more than 12 hours long. Fact is Mazda rotary powered cars (from LMP prototypes to nearly stock GTs) have had much, much greater success in endurance racing than either Nissan or Mitsubishi.

Really? Which word did you fail to comprehend, "endurance" or "race"?

I'm with most everyone else here. Short of a small autocross track or a very twisty downhill run the RX-8 is going to lose to the 350Z and/or Evo in a race (given drivers of similar skill) unless that race is more than 12 hours long. Fact is Mazda rotary powered cars (from LMP prototypes to nearly stock GTs) have had much, much greater success in endurance racing than either Nissan or Mitsubishi.

I guess I missed the words..."moot point".

Dude, LeMans has nothing to do with the cars we buy from the factory with a warantee and leather seats. Bottom Line. See post #11 for further details. I can understand the Mazda defense in this comparison because it was clearly horribly executed from the factory but when it is out-matched...it is out-matched. The level that the RX-8 is at, should place it in competition with cars costing $10k less. Great idea...poorly executed by Mazda.

Apparently you missed the concept of "classes".

Not every car in endurance racing is a factory prototype racer. Stock-engined class a and b RX-8s hold multiple world endurance records and the three class b RX-8s in the European Endurance Series this season have a 100% finishing rate over 8 races. (No RX-8s have run LeMans, I just used it as a fairly accurate and high profile gauge of Mazda's overall endurance success with the wankel engine vis a vis other Japanese car makers). Those results are a wee bit more relevant to how a showroom RX-8 would do in an endurance race than apocryphal stories of sub-20k engine failures or your personal opinion of the car.

Heck, I'm no huge fan of the RX-8. It's ugly (although not as ugly as the Evo), heavy (though not so much as the Z) and overly thirsty. Of these three cars I'd take the LanEvo in a heartbeat (or an S2000 if it was my money being spent), but the plain fact is that rotaries, especially naturally aspirated rotaries, are extraordinarily succesfull in endurance racing.

Apparently you missed the concept of "classes".

Not every car in endurance racing is a factory prototype racer. Stock-engined class a and b RX-8s hold multiple world endurance records and the three class b RX-8s in the European Endurance Series this season have a 100% finishing rate over 8 races. (No RX-8s have run LeMans, I just used it as a fairly accurate and high profile gauge of Mazda's overall endurance success with the wankel engine vis a vis other Japanese car makers). Those results are a wee bit more relevant to how a showroom RX-8 would do in an endurance race than apocryphal stories of sub-20k engine failures or your personal opinion of the car.

Heck, I'm no huge fan of the RX-8. It's ugly (although not as ugly as the Evo), heavy (though not so much as the Z) and overly thirsty. Of these three cars I'd take the LanEvo in a heartbeat (or an S2000 if it was my money being spent), but the plain fact is that rotaries, especially naturally aspirated rotaries, are extraordinarily succesfull in endurance racing.

to avoid further discussion about this subject, let me refer you to the thread starters post.


The Contenders:
Nissan 350z
Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX
Mazda RX-8

The coarses:
Drag
Road coarse

Which cars do you think would win in what event?

PS: Each car should be the newest year like the Lance EVO is 2006, etc.

now where in there do you see endurance racing...so i tell you again "moot point".

if you would like to discuss endurance racing we can bring up cars for endurance racing. bottom line, the new rotary is very weak in terms of performance aspects in todays standard. it's underpowered, lacking in torque, gets horrible gas mileage for what it is.

please give me a used M3 for that money. :)

the "track" obviously depends on the type of track and how fast or technical it is.

The RX8 could definitely win on a tight technical course

yea thats what i started to say. i think the z and the rx-8 got the same tiome on the top gear track.

I could care less how well the RX-8 performs, because it's not about performance. It's about being fun to drive, being comfortable yet still enjoyable to drive aggressively, and it accomplishes that very well. I'll admit that it's a little low on torque (though the gearshifter and clutch on that car are so smooth that I doubt I'd mind all the downshifting), and that the gas mileage should be a lot better, but I can't think of a more fun new car for less than 30 grand. Maybe the WRX, though it's a different kind of car, sort of. But if it really is true that the Renesises are having major issues under 20K miles (and I need more than one opinion from someone who clearly doesn't like the RX-8 anyways), then forget about it.

Now if you wanna go into used cars, you've got the M3, which takes the same concept as the RX-8 and executes it just as well, if not better. You've got the '04-'05 STi, which is actually reasonably comfortable as a daily driver, but still has the kind of performance more suited for taking on RX-7's than RX-8's. You've got the early 90's NSX, which, if kept in good shape, is one of the most civilized and reliable exotics ever built. But it's not really fair to compare a new car vs. a used car.

but I can't think of a more fun new car for less than 30 grand.

How about the miata :evillol:

Now if you wanna go into used cars, you've got the M3, which takes the same concept as the RX-8 and executes it just as well, if not better.

wait...what? huh? did you just honestly compare an M3 with an RX8 and said it MAY have been executed better. c'mon....c'mooonn. the M3 is the epitome of a Luxury Coupe, there is just nothing out there that touches the well-roundedness of the M3 as it should as MSRP is almost twice as much as an RX8 in this particular comparison.

IMO, the RX8 was an awesome idea and great timing but absolutely poor execution. it could have been something special and they made it something that is inferior to its competition price wise.

a fun car for under $30k: Saturn Sky Redline and Pontiac Solstice GXP.

maybe i just don't like the RX8. i love rotaries and what the car is built for but the RX8 i can't stand anything about it. its bulky, tall, 4-door, weak, etc.

actually, i'm of the mind that the RX-8 is a bit of a bargain in the UK.
At £22,000 (average cost at £24,000) for the higher power bhp car, it is more or less the same price as the old fiat coupe turbo was when new and is much better built than that ever was and performs in a very similar manner, not to mention that unlike the fiat, you can actually get four adults in it AND a decent bootfull of stuff.

Only problem in the UK is that it is very similar in price to a Golf R32, not to mention that a Civic Type R is cheaper and just as fast/useful.
it's also getting close to the price of the old 156 GTA which, while it was a bit of a leap of faith, is once again, pretty much a match for the RX-8 (except for the FWD of course).

wait...what? huh? did you just honestly compare an M3 with an RX8 and said it MAY have been executed better. c'mon....c'mooonn. the M3 is the epitome of a Luxury Coupe, there is just nothing out there that touches the well-roundedness of the M3 as it should as MSRP is almost twice as much as an RX8 in this particular comparison.

IMO, the RX8 was an awesome idea and great timing but absolutely poor execution. it could have been something special and they made it something that is inferior to its competition price wise.

a fun car for under $30k: Saturn Sky Redline and Pontiac Solstice GXP.

maybe i just don't like the RX8. i love rotaries and what the car is built for but the RX8 i can't stand anything about it. its bulky, tall, 4-door, weak, etc.

Sorry, I really don't like the M3. Or BMWs in general. Though I will admit that the M3 is very well-executed car, I don't think Mazda did bad AT ALL with the RX-8.

The GM convertibles look like they might be quite enjoyable - I've yet to drive one, so I can't really comment on them. And yes, I forgot the MX-5 Miata, another solid drive for under 30 grand.

Bulky? The RX-8 only weighs 2800 pounds, HARDLY heavy by today's standards. Tall? Compared to what, a Lotus Elise? It's still a sports coupe, and it's still lower than just about any sedan or SUV, which is most of what you see on the road. Four doors? Good, it still looks like a coupe, but I have no problem getting into and comfortably sitting in the backseat. Weak? 238 horsepower might be scorchingly fast, but it's still very quick, and it's enough to get the RX-8 to low 14's. Learn to like downshifting and paying a little bit more at the pump, and it's a really well-rounded car, and I happen to think it looks incredibly good.

the biggest problem with the RX-8 is that they made the RX-7 before it......

Which is irrelevant to me, because the way I see it, the RX-8 was NOT meant to follow in the RX-7's footsteps. It's a different kind of car completely.

Mazda should have at least known that comparisons were going to be made with the RX7.

As for this tread the race would be.

1. Mazda RX8 (DNF- engine)
2. Nissan 350Z (DNF- Driver retired due to having his bone structure rearanged by the cars really shitty ride quality)
3. Evo IX (DNS- Carjacked on way to race track)

Sorry, I really don't like the M3. Or BMWs in general. Though I will admit that the M3 is very well-executed car, I don't think Mazda did bad AT ALL with the RX-8.

The GM convertibles look like they might be quite enjoyable - I've yet to drive one, so I can't really comment on them. And yes, I forgot the MX-5 Miata, another solid drive for under 30 grand.

Bulky? The RX-8 only weighs 2800 pounds, HARDLY heavy by today's standards. Tall? Compared to what, a Lotus Elise? It's still a sports coupe, and it's still lower than just about any sedan or SUV, which is most of what you see on the road. Four doors? Good, it still looks like a coupe, but I have no problem getting into and comfortably sitting in the backseat. Weak? 238 horsepower might be scorchingly fast, but it's still very quick, and it's enough to get the RX-8 to low 14's. Learn to like downshifting and paying a little bit more at the pump, and it's a really well-rounded car, and I happen to think it looks incredibly good.

yea, i think the rx-8 is great, it is probably my favorite car for the price.

Which is irrelevant to me, because the way I see it, the RX-8 was NOT meant to follow in the RX-7's footsteps. It's a different kind of car completely.

i'm not sure if that's important.
the point is, everyone was expecting an RX-7 replacement.
They could shout about how it isn't that until they are (innocent) blue in the face, it won't change the fact that people expected something different to what they ended up doing. The fact that the resulting car is more family orientated and not of the hard-core sports/GT car that they wanted only goes to increase the disappointment.

to put a slightly different spin on this situation.
ferrari/dino 246 gt ----> 308 gt/4

pretty much the same thing was said back then.
4 seats?
it looks like what?
you mean it's not actually faster?



1. Mazda RX8 (DNF- engine)
2. Nissan 350Z (DNF- Driver retired due to having his bone structure rearanged by the cars really shitty ride quality)
3. Evo IX (DNS- Carjacked on way to race track)

not quite.
it would be
2. Nissan 350Z (DNF - Driver crashed at the third corner as the sun caught the rear strut/brace which temporarily blinded him from the rear view mirror)

i'm not sure if that's important.
the point is, everyone was expecting an RX-7 replacement.
They could shout about how it isn't that until they are (innocent) blue in the face, it won't change the fact that people expected something different to what they ended up doing. The fact that the resulting car is more family orientated and not of the hard-core sports/GT car that they wanted only goes to increase the disappointment.

You're right, a lot of people did expect an RX-7 replacement. However, I don't judge a car based on its predecessor, I judge it based on how good of a car it is - and I'm very glad that Mazda didn't, either. Even though the RX-8 loses to the RX-7 in performance (though not nearly as badly as everyone makes it out to be), it makes up for it in just about every other area. It's thousands cheaper, it seats four comfortably, it has very bearable ride quality, and it even gets better gas mileage. If you were expecting the RX-8 to outperform the RX-7, then the RX-8 is not for you. Fine. But if you totally dismiss the car as junk just because it doesn't, then you're being a little narrow-minded, and need to look at some other aspects of driving. What I expected was an affordable, fun-to-drive sports coupe that could do daily driver duty no problem, and it solidly delivers in all of those areas.

now i know that you meant "you" as in the general but seeing as it was posted in response to mine, i just want to point out that i never dismissed the car or said anything that goes anywhere near saying it is junk.
i merely stated that the biggest problem mazda had with the RX-8 is that they had made the RX-7 before it.

But if you totally dismiss the car as junk just because it doesn't, then you're being a little narrow-minded, and need to look at some other aspects of driving.

by no means is the car junk, but it doesn't compete with its competition. it competes with cars costing $10k less. i would put it in the same class as a Cobalt SS, RSX Type S, etc. it performs about the same, it has 4 seats for economy, etc. only thing it doesn't get is good gas mileage but i don't expect that out of a rotary so...that is forgiven.

as for it being bulky, as i was more referring to its looks and feel than its weight. it be no means is overweight but the car just seems big, almost like i am driving a family sedan.

as for being tall, it sits too high. it should be sleek and flowing. its not...its angle and upright.

there is nothing sporty about the look of the car. it looks like a stretched, pissed off Mazda 3.

poor design in my opinion. and as for comparing it to the RX7. of course it was gonna be compared the RX7; if they didnt want it to be they should have named it something different. not the RX8 which one would presume follows the 7. for example, the 350Z didn't follow up well after the 300zx in my opinion but Nissan could go back to the roots of the Z car. the original Z cars were dominant sports cars on a budget and this is where Nissan went instead of unaffordable dominant GT car. Mazda made the mistake of getting REALLY side-tracked with their renesis series. the RX8 got away from everything the rotary powered car stands for and then some.

Not a whole lot more to be said, then. You think the RX-8 is ugly, I think it looks amazing. You think it's a disappointment to the rotary line because it loses performance rather than gains it and has four doors, I think it's an evolution of the rotary line because it combines fun behind the wheel and practicality like the RX-7 never could.

I do agree with you that the 350Z is a pretty big letdown, though. Besides having appalling ride quality and a complete lack of daily drivability, it looks like shit. Far from the mini-Ferrari that was the 300ZX.

by no means is the car junk, but it doesn't compete with its competition. it competes with cars costing $10k less. i would put it in the same class as a Cobalt SS, RSX Type S, etc. it performs about the same, it has 4 seats for economy, etc. only thing it doesn't get is good gas mileage but i don't expect that out of a rotary so...that is forgiven.

as for it being bulky, as i was more referring to its looks and feel than its weight. it be no means is overweight but the car just seems big, almost like i am driving a family sedan.

as for being tall, it sits too high. it should be sleek and flowing. its not...its angle and upright.

there is nothing sporty about the look of the car. it looks like a stretched, pissed off Mazda 3.

poor design in my opinion. and as for comparing it to the RX7. of course it was gonna be compared the RX7; if they didnt want it to be they should have named it something different. not the RX8 which one would presume follows the 7. for example, the 350Z didn't follow up well after the 300zx in my opinion but Nissan could go back to the roots of the Z car. the original Z cars were dominant sports cars on a budget and this is where Nissan went instead of unaffordable dominant GT car. Mazda made the mistake of getting REALLY side-tracked with their renesis series. the RX8 got away from everything the rotary powered car stands for and then some.


the rx-8 easily outpreforms the rsx and cobalt ss, it has 230hp compared to the others 210 and 200. it also only costs 26-28k and i dont know of anything close to its performance for 16k as you mentioned. the rsx is 24k , hardly 10k less. either way it is still outperformed by the rx-8.

and how does it feel heavy? all i have ever heard is praise about its superb handling and 50/50 weight distribution.

Not a whole lot more to be said, then. You think the RX-8 is ugly, I think it looks amazing. You think it's a disappointment to the rotary line because it loses performance rather than gains it and has four doors, I think it's an evolution of the rotary line because it combines fun behind the wheel and practicality like the RX-7 never could.

I do agree with you that the 350Z is a pretty big letdown, though. Besides having appalling ride quality and a complete lack of daily drivability, it looks like shit. Far from the mini-Ferrari that was the 300ZX.

agreed... the 4 doors should be a sin.

the rx-8 easily outpreforms the rsx and cobalt ss, it has 230hp compared to the others 210 and 200. it also only costs 26-28k and i dont know of anything close to its performance for 16k as you mentioned. the rsx is 24k , hardly 10k less. either way it is still outperformed by the rx-8.

dude, the point is that it better competes with cars like the RSX Type-S and CobaltSS than the cars it was made to compete with. i guess that point just flew over your head...

im sorry, MSRP is about $27k but i haven't seen one on the dealership lot for less than $30k around here. they usually are about $31k-$33k. while on the other hand i can pick up a Cobalt SS for just a tad over $20k and the way i see it, it is just as well performing than the RX8 mostly because the RX8 doesn't have enough power to push its suspension any harder than the SS. the RX8's suspension is overkill for the car. the whole car feels doggy because of missing torque.


and how does it feel heavy? all i have ever heard is praise about its superb handling and 50/50 weight distribution.

um...where did i say it feels HEAVY? i said it feels bulky...feels like im sitting "on top" of a boat instead of sitting "inside" a sports car. it does handle well...never said it didn't but if it had the power to push the suspension hard like in a 350Z im sure you would fine weaknesses and the handling of the car would be not so ideal.

dont take this as me saying that the RX8 doesn't handle any better than a 350Z. im just saying...it is a good auto-cross car and if were to get on a real track it would get raped but the other cars in its assumed class.

agreed... the 4 doors should be a sin.

I'm just curious, why is it so bad that the RX-8 has four doors? I could understand if you just think the rear doors make the car look ugly, but it seems to be something more than that...

dude, the point is that it better competes with cars like the RSX Type-S and CobaltSS than the cars it was made to compete with. i guess that point just flew over your head...

im sorry, MSRP is about $27k but i haven't seen one on the dealership lot for less than $30k around here. they usually are about $31k-$33k. while on the other hand i can pick up a Cobalt SS for just a tad over $20k and the way i see it, it is just as well performing than the RX8 mostly because the RX8 doesn't have enough power to push its suspension any harder than the SS. the RX8's suspension is overkill for the car. the whole car feels doggy because of missing torque.

MSRP for a base model is around $27K - most of the ones you see on dealer's lots have luxury packages equipped, which raises the price a few grand. RX-8s can be had for under 30 grand new, you just have to look around. And I would hardly the say the Cobalt SS and Acura RSX Type S are better competition for the RX-8 than the 350Z or the Mustang GT. The RX-8 isn't all that far behind them in performance, and it could be argued that it's about equal with them. You say it doesn't have enough power to push its suspension to the limit, but it does. Sure, it doesn't have a lot of torque, but it revs all the way to 9000 rpm. It's making all 238 horsepower, it's just making it over a much wider powerband than most cars do.

um...where did i say it feels HEAVY? i said it feels bulky...feels like im sitting "on top" of a boat instead of sitting "inside" a sports car. it does handle well...never said it didn't but if it had the power to push the suspension hard like in a 350Z im sure you would fine weaknesses and the handling of the car would be not so ideal.

dont take this as me saying that the RX8 doesn't handle any better than a 350Z. im just saying...it is a good auto-cross car and if were to get on a real track it would get raped but the other cars in its assumed class.

I just cannot understand how you felt like you were sitting "on top" of the RX-8. Maybe compared to a 300ZX, it feels a little high off the ground, but compared to a Subaru Impreza, it felt nice and low to me. *shrug*

If the RX-8 would get raped by the other cars in its "assumed class", then why did it get the same time as the 350Z at Top Gear's test track? We can argue all day about whether or not Top Gear's test track is an autocross course or a "real track", but that's a really stupid argument, because the bottom line is, the RX-8 kept up with the 350Z in the corners. And that's including the fact that it has a far more complaint ride and 40 less horsepower. Pretty impressive for an underpowered four-door, I'd say.

I'm just curious, why is it so bad that the RX-8 has four doors? I could understand if you just think the rear doors make the car look ugly, but it seems to be something more than that...

4-doors on any car designed to be a sporty car should be a sin. just my personal views. if you want economy by a luxury sedan or something of the sort. there shouldn't be the "best" of bother worlds when it comes to this unless it is a rally car where it is mandated. 2 extra doors turn a sexy sports car into a long sporty sedan that isnt worth looking at. with the RX series that the RX8 carries on, it should have been designed totally different. i would be much more happy with the car if it was named the Mazda "insert name here" Speed, not carry on the RX badge.


MSRP for a base model is around $27K - most of the ones you see on dealer's lots have luxury packages equipped, which raises the price a few grand. RX-8s can be had for under 30 grand new, you just have to look around. And I would hardly the say the Cobalt SS and Acura RSX Type S are better competition for the RX-8 than the 350Z or the Mustang GT. The RX-8 isn't all that far behind them in performance, and it could be argued that it's about equal with them. You say it doesn't have enough power to push its suspension to the limit, but it does. Sure, it doesn't have a lot of torque, but it revs all the way to 9000 rpm. It's making all 238 horsepower, it's just making it over a much wider powerband than most cars do.
it does rev nicely but the power band is weak at all rpms. HP is worthless without torque and torque is power. it has a very weak power band as far as im concerned.

its not just its performance why i think of its competition being the CobaltSS and others. its because it is more of an economy car built for the grandpa that doesn't know what to do with his money so he buys a sporty sedan that he can still carry the grand kids in. its the whole economy things Mazda was trying to fit in...only thing not economy about the car is the gas mileage.

350Z was designed for sports car enthusiasts on a budget. backseats? 4 doors? trunk?

mustang...its basic necessities.

bottom line: if i saw a 4 door 350Z or something of the like i would be saying the same thing. its like comparing a G35 sedan to a G35 coupe. they just dont come off as the same car eventhough all aspects are similar. one is for a family and one is for minor practicality and more performance and killer looks.



I just cannot understand how you felt like you were sitting "on top" of the RX-8. Maybe compared to a 300ZX, it feels a little high off the ground, but compared to a Subaru Impreza, it felt nice and low to me. *shrug*

again, all this is opinionated so our back and forth comments have no bearing.

but...after driving an RX7 and falling in love, or driving a 300zx, or a supra, or a miata, or a s2000, etc. i feel like i am IN the car, tucked in, wherever the car goes im going.

in the RX8 it felt like my grand prix GTP...tall, bulky, etc. maybe like riding a horse bare-back and then riding it with a saddle. one your jumping around and you dont really feel like your one with the horse and the other your moving with the horse and it just feels good. ;)


If the RX-8 would get raped by the other cars in its "assumed class", then why did it get the same time as the 350Z at Top Gear's test track? We can argue all day about whether or not Top Gear's test track is an autocross course or a "real track", but that's a really stupid argument, because the bottom line is, the RX-8 kept up with the 350Z in the corners. And that's including the fact that it has a far more complaint ride and 40 less horsepower. Pretty impressive for an underpowered four-door, I'd say.

eh....350Z isnt a good comparison because i personally think its suspension is WAY below par. but im sure it was a tight course because i dont even want to think about how much a 350Z would destroy a RX8 on a fast course and on straights. the 350Z could go down to a 5speed because of all of the N/A torque at any RPM. while coming out of a corner it would take an RX8 or s2000 (for example) a few rpms to get into its power band. in that few rpms the Z would run away but with the lacking suspension and body roll of the 350Z these cars are able to run right with it on tighter courses.

to sum up: its all opinionated. i dont care for the RX8. i think it is a disgrace to the renesis class of cars and i think Mazda would have one alot better if they would have improved on the already gorgeous RX7 and make the motor more reliable. the sporty sedan isnt a Niche market right now. people either want a 2 door sports car or they want a sedan to haul the family.

4-doors on any car designed to be a sporty car should be a sin. just my personal views. if you want economy by a luxury sedan or something of the sort. there shouldn't be the "best" of bother worlds when it comes to this unless it is a rally car where it is mandated. 2 extra doors turn a sexy sports car into a long sporty sedan that isnt worth looking at. with the RX series that the RX8 carries on, it should have been designed totally different. i would be much more happy with the car if it was named the Mazda "insert name here" Speed, not carry on the RX badge.
But the RX-8 isn't a "long sporty sedan". It doesn't look like a sedan at all. I respect your opinion and personal preference, but what you're telling me is complete nonsense. There is NOTHING economy car-ish about the RX-8. It is no way, shape, or form a "grandpa's car". And since when is having the best of both worlds a bad thing? If having a "pure" sports car means no backseats, no cargo space, and a choppy ride, then screw it, I don't want a pure sports car. I want something that's sporty yet still economical and practical, something that is enjoyable to drive in the curves yet can still carry four people in reasonable comfort. I guess that's why the Impreza WRX STi is my ideal car. It's a little loud, and the ride is a little harsh, but it'll still carry four people without any complaint. Turn it loose, though, and you've got a $35,000 car that'll keep up with just about anything shy of a Corvette, a 911, or an exotic. I mean, why wouldn't you want that kind of versatility? Just you can have a "pure" sports car? Elitist bullshit at its finest. :)

Elitist bullshit at its finest. :)

Exactly!!!! :D

i dont know...i dont care for the best of both worlds. it just isn't right and it is never one properly. its never the best of both worlds. the cars that are made are always the worst of both worlds but both worlds none-the-less.

for example, the RX8 is supposed to give you a little economy by having 4 seats but still the sports car look and feel. but it fails at both, its not that comfortable, the doors are way under size for practicality, gas mileage is below par...as for the sports car aspect; it is lacking in performance. period. therefore what was once might be the best of both worlds is horrible at either world.

the bottom line is i think the RX8 is a failure and i think the sales support my opinion.

also, by long-sporty sedan, i mean when sitting in it, it feels long, seems long, and it is a sporty sedan. in my oinion, it does look like a sedan...its so damn tall and it has 4 doors. honeslty, it looks like a pick up trucks cab with a miata front and a mazda 3 rear.

im just not happy with it all and it takes me alot to say that because i absolutely love the FC and FD but the FE just leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

ya cant persuade me different almighty kman. :D

I guess that's why the Impreza WRX STi is my ideal car. It's a little loud, and the ride is a little harsh, but it'll still carry four people without any complaint. Turn it loose, though, and you've got a $35,000 car that'll keep up with just about anything shy of a Corvette, a 911, or an exotic. I mean, why wouldn't you want that kind of versatility? Just you can have a "pure" sports car? Elitist bullshit at its finest. :)

Because we're divorced and childless and don't need or want back seats.

The way I see it is that the idea of an STi/Evo/RX8 being an every day performance car is flawed for one big reason: Fuel consumption. I'm not poor by any means, but I still baulk at the thought of paying the running costs for one, especially in Europe. The car may well have 4 seats, but it's useless for anything other than a weekend car if you can't afford to run it. I'd rather have something a proper sports car and a cheap runaround.


Oh and I think they're fugly...

The looks thing is subjective - call me crazy, but I think the STi, Evo, and RX-8 are all very good-looking. And fuel is still only about $3.00 a gallon here - not cheap, but I can live with it, even at only 16-17 mpg.

Even though I'm not married and have no children, I just think it's nice to have four seats, in case I ever want to carry more than one person with me. I could certainly manage with only two seats, and I'm not saying that two-seaters suck or anything - as much as I like the RX-8, I'd probably take an FD RX-7 over one, just for the looks and the performance - I'd just rather have four seats if it's an option.

Definitely, I never intended it to be anything other than a very subjective opinion.


But for the record I don't find the RX8 to be at all ugly, nowhere near as timeless as the FD, but at the very least it's interesting.

nowhere near as timeless as the FD

to say the least...


I'd probably take an FD RX-7 over one, just for the looks and the performance

finally, something we car agree on. :D