The RACV method utilized to determine the "best sports car" for 2007 seems to me to be somewhat flawed. I guess it comes down to the definition of a "sports car." A tarted up VW golf, Lancer,Focus,Commodore ,Astra etc certainly does not meet my definition of a "sports car". If you are not familiar with these awards sadly I have to tell you that our marque of choice finished in twenty first place.

 

I read the RX8's review at the 2007 Australia's Best Cars editorial and it is similar to the RACV one.
Golf GTi took the gong and RX8 ended up pretty poorly in the rankings.
I do have to say that over the years the weighing of the criterias have switched heaps to fuel economy, environment, emmisions, storage space etc.
This might explain why RX8 is sliding down the ranks, there is a shift in terms of what's important for the supposedly "discerning" sports car buyers nowadays.

 

Well spoken Andy. They are going for power and usefulness to handling and style.

 

Yeah, that is what RACV's market is wanting. Members don't want to know about handling and style, considering their average age is somewhere around 55-60 years old.

All reviews will be biased towards the needs and wants of the market that read them.

 

Yes which leads to the people who dont fit into that demographic seeing it for what it is...a crock of ****!

Its like saying that the racehorse of the year is a shetlan pony because the majority of the readers of "Racehorse" magazine are 4' tall! Just because they dont like having to get a leg up to get onto a REAL Racehorse doesnt mean you can change what a racehorse is.

 

Yeah, but then they have to write these things for a specific audiences, which is why most of us will get a more reasonable review from something like TopGear as compared with RACV RoyalAuto Magazine.

 

I wonder who will win the sports car of the year from TopGear next week......

(Just saw the 24 hour race episode yesterday... so funny)

 

ALL awards, especially motoring awards, are just marketing gimmicks. Anyone who puts much store by them when car shopping needs a wake up call...

 

I agree on a whole, but that is a very broad generalisation.

 

My neighbour and I swapped cars for our last trip to the beach.

His GTI has had some mods and allegedly puts out 180kw. It certainly has more urge than the TT I drove. The downside is that the front tyres are always struggling with the power.

In the 8 he was surprised at how fast he was travelling out of tight corners and agreed that the GTI was no match in the handling department.

Still for about 10k less the GTI is a pretty good car, although I couldn't live with the seats. I did 9 hours and 950km in the RX-8 only stopping for fuel and got out feeling good. I haven't done that with any other car for years.

 

Really? Why not?

 

I am happy with the car the way it is.

I am lucky to live in a rural area with some of the most interesting roads in the country. I bought the RX-8 to get places quickly and safely.

At 47 my back is not up to race ready suspension any more. At least not on these roads.

 

I have now procured a copy of the "2008 edition of Australia's Best Cars as judged by the nations auto clubs". While I have only perused the sports cars section I think it is a pretty unconvincing effort. The main weakness seems to be their failure to clearly define the various scoring factors. While I can generally understand "build and finish quality" they failed to clearly indicate what they measured for "performance". Was it zero to 100 kmh times , top speed (probably not ! ), was it ability to pass another car or some other criteria or a combination of these factors plus others? Which did they give most weight to and why?
What factors did they consider to arrive at the "handling" scores. Was the vehicle's ability to change direction quickly the most important factor or did they give more weight to how it floated through a sweeping high speed corner corner at 160 kmh ? Was how it behaved on a rough road given more weight than how stable it felt when popping out from a semi trailer slipstream?
How can they rank a $25000 Fiesta XR4 "sports car"three places higher overall than a $50000 RX8 and have any credibility? (Why even bother comparing these two cars?) The Fiesta XR4 even scored higher than the RX8 on "standard features" .
Why wasn't aesthetics and attention grabbing road presence a factor ? Why did they even bother to specifically mention that the rotary engine was great in a "sporting setting" but not so useful in a traffic jam? (Did they mark the RX8 down because of this?! )The whole exercise was flawed and futile and I am disappointed with myself for bothering to go and buy their pathetic little lowbrow $9.95 magazine in the forlorn hope that the misgivings I originally expressed in this thread might have been turned around by clear , concise and intelligent assessment criteria. It's enough to make me consider setting fire to my RACV Gold Member card!

 

Their loss, certainly not ours.

 

One additional thing you guys are missing out on in this discussion:

The RX-8 hasn't changed since 2003. No one wants to hear about the same car that's been out for 4 years. Especially if it ranks really high.

And it gets worse. Mazda keeps making new revisions of the RX-8 that are essentially the same. The new face lift version of the RX-8 looks like a slightly different body kit. If this is true, then even the "new" rx8 will be the same as the old, and there will not be anything new to discuss with the upcoming model.

 

Great cars don't need to change every year. Look at the Vette. It changes very little after the next gen. comes out. Wonder how long the C6 will look like a C6.

 

One of the reasons I bought a new 2007 RX8 was that I figured the original brilliant concept had been refined over the past 5 years. I also have a 1981 911SC and Porsche stuck with basically that same design while improving the mechanicals for a decade or more to the point where in 2007 those original late 70's to mid 80's cars are still regarded as essentially bullet proof.
The RX8 has been improved over the years and is now more competitively priced than it was which should surely have helped it's ranking in the "sports car"awards.

 

I certainly agree it's more competitively priced, but the changes made to the RX-8 since 2003 have been minimal.

 

Another example of "Creative journalism".

Guys, its very common. Hell. I have done it for years.................

Only the magazines I have written for over the years such as "Fast Fours, Hot-4's, Zoom, HPI + more" have all had a highly educated & biased view towards the rotary Mazda

Never forget the RX-8 was the 2003-Wheels car of the year. RACV caters for Cardigan wearing camry & Corrolla drivers.

REgards

 

i have never heard of a petrol efficient sports car

if you want fuel economy, get a barina


I still love my car and its going to be very hard to move on or even find a car that handles as good as the 8

Lots of mods/projects to do!

 

Theres some pretty subjective reporting going on out the RX8 at the moment. At the end of the day the RACV report was compiled by 'one person'.

The car didn't get Wheels car of the year and rated by Top Gear for nothing....!

 

I think the problem is that the RACV, NRMA etc surveyed their own members to determine the weightings for the various categories. I suspect their overwhelming membership profile would not generally be typical sports car buyers. As a result cars that many of us would not even consider to be sports cars were included and the weightings were skewed in ways that worked against the RX8, the MX5 and the 350Z (which I guess is what DMRH is saying).