Which car would win in what event?

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by drdisque

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.

[kman10587]

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.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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

How about the miata

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[drunken monkey]

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).

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by k3smostwanted

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.

[drunken monkey]

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

[kman10587]

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.

[Jimster]

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)

[blakscorpion21]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[drunken monkey]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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?

Originally Posted by Jimster

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)

[kman10587]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

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.

[drunken monkey]

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.

[k3smostwanted]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[kman10587]

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.