RX8 = M3 = 350z
05-05-2006 | 09:58 AM
#27
Registered
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
From: Georgetown
Why is it that whenever we have a post from a guy praising the 8, the same characters show up and start ****'n away. You guys are more regular than my bowel movements. 
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
05-05-2006 | 10:15 AM
#28
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by crimson-rain
let me put on my flame suit but
turbo an M3 .... why?
Nothing against turbos, but I'm REALLY starting to believe that's becoming a fad. I'm not saying NA or SC is better (turbos are good with the right application and tuning as with anything else), it's just I see a growing trend of people saying "you want more power, you HAVE TO GO TURBO". Like the 350Z. Does it really need a TT setup (or FI period), or did someone decide that they would do a TT setup to make it just like the 300Z TT and stick with tradition. I see pretty much the same thing with the 8. "It should of came stock with a turbo." Why? "Because the RX-7 was turbo". And I'm sure people would FREAK OUT if an EVO or STi came out NA even if they found a way to make them 300hp without the snail.
As far as that comparo, the 8, 350, and M3 were pretty much equal for that environment. Given different environments, one will outshine the other.
turbo an M3 .... why?
Nothing against turbos, but I'm REALLY starting to believe that's becoming a fad. I'm not saying NA or SC is better (turbos are good with the right application and tuning as with anything else), it's just I see a growing trend of people saying "you want more power, you HAVE TO GO TURBO". Like the 350Z. Does it really need a TT setup (or FI period), or did someone decide that they would do a TT setup to make it just like the 300Z TT and stick with tradition. I see pretty much the same thing with the 8. "It should of came stock with a turbo." Why? "Because the RX-7 was turbo". And I'm sure people would FREAK OUT if an EVO or STi came out NA even if they found a way to make them 300hp without the snail.
As far as that comparo, the 8, 350, and M3 were pretty much equal for that environment. Given different environments, one will outshine the other.
05-05-2006 | 10:20 AM
#29
The Prototype
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by crimson-rain
let me put on my flame suit but
turbo an M3 .... why?
Nothing against turbos, but I'm REALLY starting to believe that's becoming a fad. I'm not saying NA or SC is better (turbos are good with the right application and tuning as with anything else), it's just I see a growing trend of people saying "you want more power, you HAVE TO GO TURBO". Like the 350Z. Does it really need a TT setup (or FI period), or did someone decide that they would do a TT setup to make it just like the 300Z TT and stick with tradition. I see pretty much the same thing with the 8. "It should of came stock with a turbo." Why? "Because the RX-7 was turbo". And I'm sure people would FREAK OUT if an EVO or STi came out NA even if they found a way to make them 300hp without the snail.
As far as that comparo, the 8, 350, and M3 were pretty much equal for that environment. Given different environments, one will outshine the other.
turbo an M3 .... why?
Nothing against turbos, but I'm REALLY starting to believe that's becoming a fad. I'm not saying NA or SC is better (turbos are good with the right application and tuning as with anything else), it's just I see a growing trend of people saying "you want more power, you HAVE TO GO TURBO". Like the 350Z. Does it really need a TT setup (or FI period), or did someone decide that they would do a TT setup to make it just like the 300Z TT and stick with tradition. I see pretty much the same thing with the 8. "It should of came stock with a turbo." Why? "Because the RX-7 was turbo". And I'm sure people would FREAK OUT if an EVO or STi came out NA even if they found a way to make them 300hp without the snail.
As far as that comparo, the 8, 350, and M3 were pretty much equal for that environment. Given different environments, one will outshine the other.
Not flaming you, but giving you some reason why people want to turbo N/A cars. Take for example the 350Z, me being a Nissan buff, most people know the VQ3.5 is pretty muched tapped out from the factory. Mere air intakes, and exhaust systems don't do much in the performance department without a proper tune module a.k.a Technosquare ecu or flash. With all the breather mods and a tune without touching the internals would net anywhere from 20-25WHP give or take. But to achieve that goal of that much WHP , you are looking to spend over 2k and up....
Most people couldn't justify spending that type of $$$ just for a 20WHP increase. So for an extra 2-3k more why not slap on a turbo or twin turbo and net a gain of anywhere from 50-100WHP, possibly more with a proper tune.
Most N/A guys don't know that little head work can go a long way,proper cams, etc will net you more HP than most bolt on applications. But then again most people use there sports car or cars as there daily driver , and can't afford the down time to get head work done.
People who buy 350Z's, M3's, S2000, RX-8 all run into this problem. These cars come tweaked as is, there motors are pretty muched speced out from factory, so really the best mod to these cars ,is you the DRIVER., learn how to drive your car properly...or fork over large amounts of cash and add a snail or two.
05-05-2006 | 10:27 AM
#30
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by DailyDriver2k5
Not flaming you, but giving you some reason why people want to turbo N/A cars. Take for example the 350Z, me being a Nissan buff, most people know the VQ3.5 is pretty muched tapped out from the factory.
. On the other hand, with the turbo on the STi, I can add a downpipe and engine management software for $1000 or less and add ~50bhp.
05-05-2006 | 10:45 AM
#31
The Prototype
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Yep, good point. Go to http://www.dinanbmw.com to see what you can do with the stock BMW engine. I had a Z3 before the STi and RX-8, so I know how hard it is to make power without FI. For instance, for the Z3, for $2475, you can buy a package that contains engine management software, cold air intake, full exhaust, and a strut tower brace. That nets you a whopping 13 bhp . On the other hand, with the turbo on the STi, I can add a downpipe and engine management software for $1000 or less and add ~50bhp.
. On the other hand, with the turbo on the STi, I can add a downpipe and engine management software for $1000 or less and add ~50bhp.Yeah , adding HP to most N/A cars is very expensive and complicated/fustrating to do unless you have a V8. For some reason the V8 N/A is is exempt from this. Small modifications say to a Mustang/Camaro/Firebird/Vette will net you respectable amounts of HP without breaking the bank.
When i had my TTZ i added a Jim wolf pop charger,B&B fulle exhaust , Jim wolf ecu upgrade and got a healthy 40 BHP all for 1500 bucks. Thats a Stage II upgrade.
Turbo cars are like V8 cars, its the cheapest way to go fast.
05-05-2006 | 10:51 AM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, FL
Autocross Results
Comparing STOCK to STOCK, decent drivers, same SCCA class, medium-fast course, good road surface.
Two different RX8's, one with R compound tires and sway bar, one with stock Potenzas and box stock.
Look at the results for the BS class. Pretty close for all RXs, Zs, and M3s.
http://buccaneerregion.org/solo/stan...6/JAX-4-06.pdf
(and yes, I am the slower RX
This was my 2nd autocross in the last 2 months, after a 20 year layoff, and 2 months with the car.)
My opinion: RX is like the skinny pale looking guy in those kung-fu movies that ends up kicking the butts of guys 3x his size. Moves like a dancer, looks like a fighter jet, sings like a hummingbird (yeah, I KNOW they don't sing, but work with me here!).
Really glad I made my choice. 350Z is nice, M3 is nice too, but RX is cheapest exotic car you can buy!
Two different RX8's, one with R compound tires and sway bar, one with stock Potenzas and box stock.
Look at the results for the BS class. Pretty close for all RXs, Zs, and M3s.
http://buccaneerregion.org/solo/stan...6/JAX-4-06.pdf
(and yes, I am the slower RX
This was my 2nd autocross in the last 2 months, after a 20 year layoff, and 2 months with the car.)My opinion: RX is like the skinny pale looking guy in those kung-fu movies that ends up kicking the butts of guys 3x his size. Moves like a dancer, looks like a fighter jet, sings like a hummingbird (yeah, I KNOW they don't sing, but work with me here!).
Really glad I made my choice. 350Z is nice, M3 is nice too, but RX is cheapest exotic car you can buy!
05-05-2006 | 10:57 AM
#33
The Prototype
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by skillmaker
Comparing STOCK to STOCK, decent drivers, same SCCA class, medium-fast course, good road surface.
Two different RX8's, one with R compound tires and sway bar, one with stock Potenzas and box stock.
Look at the results for the BS class. Pretty close for all RXs, Zs, and M3s.
http://buccaneerregion.org/solo/stan...6/JAX-4-06.pdf
(and yes, I am the slower RX This was my 2nd autocross in the last 2 months, after a 20 year layoff, and 2 months with the car.)
My opinion: RX is like the skinny pale looking guy in those kung-fu movies that ends up kicking the butts of guys 3x his size. Moves like a dancer, looks like a fighter jet, sings like a hummingbird (yeah, I KNOW they don't sing, but work with me here!).
Really glad I made my choice. 350Z is nice, M3 is nice too, but RX is cheapest exotic car you can buy!
Two different RX8's, one with R compound tires and sway bar, one with stock Potenzas and box stock.
Look at the results for the BS class. Pretty close for all RXs, Zs, and M3s.
http://buccaneerregion.org/solo/stan...6/JAX-4-06.pdf
(and yes, I am the slower RX
This was my 2nd autocross in the last 2 months, after a 20 year layoff, and 2 months with the car.)My opinion: RX is like the skinny pale looking guy in those kung-fu movies that ends up kicking the butts of guys 3x his size. Moves like a dancer, looks like a fighter jet, sings like a hummingbird (yeah, I KNOW they don't sing, but work with me here!).
Really glad I made my choice. 350Z is nice, M3 is nice too, but RX is cheapest exotic car you can buy!
impressive times epsecially going against drivers, driving some pretty impressive machinary.
05-05-2006 | 03:05 PM
#36
Originally Posted by 9291150
Why is it that whenever we have a post from a guy praising the 8, the same characters show up and start ****'n away. You guys are more regular than my bowel movements.
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
I like you. You say what I think.
05-05-2006 | 05:22 PM
#37
FULL FRONTAL ...downforce
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Missouri
Originally Posted by 9291150
Why is it that whenever we have a post from a guy praising the 8, the same characters show up and start ****'n away. You guys are more regular than my bowel movements.
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
My uncle does it all the time, tis funny.
05-05-2006 | 09:20 PM
#41
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: Tacoma, Washington
Ok, this post struck me as quite sad seeing how most people are only making the RX-8 look bad. Who really cares if it will be an M3 or a 350Z. All anyone has to know is that it an M3 with its 3.2L engine can beat a 1.3L engine off the line and in a quarter mile, but so what!!! Consider that... a 1.3L engine, how much power??? Yeah, that is what I thought.... If you made the rotary engine into a 3.2L with three rotars, you probably would get better performance out of it then the 3.2L inline on an M3... not to mention it would add some weight to the car, and would probably throw off the perfect 50-50 weight distribution somewhat... You can compare cars until you are blue in the face and worry about who is going to beat who.... but it is all about if you enjoy your car or not. Have you ever just stood back, and stared at the RX-8?? The car has a personality of its own that can not be compared to anything on the road.... This car is smiling at you with a grimace that says, "Wanna race and say what my tiny little engine can do?" All I can say is 1.3 = 6s 0-60 time.....
05-05-2006 | 11:37 PM
#43
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally Posted by astrozoom
Ok, this post struck me as quite sad seeing how most people are only making the RX-8 look bad. Who really cares if it will be an M3 or a 350Z. All anyone has to know is that it an M3 with its 3.2L engine can beat a 1.3L engine off the line and in a quarter mile, but so what!!! Consider that... a 1.3L engine, how much power??? Yeah, that is what I thought.... If you made the rotary engine into a 3.2L with three rotars, you probably would get better performance out of it then the 3.2L inline on an M3... not to mention it would add some weight to the car, and would probably throw off the perfect 50-50 weight distribution somewhat... You can compare cars until you are blue in the face and worry about who is going to beat who.... but it is all about if you enjoy your car or not. Have you ever just stood back, and stared at the RX-8?? The car has a personality of its own that can not be compared to anything on the road.... This car is smiling at you with a grimace that says, "Wanna race and say what my tiny little engine can do?" All I can say is 1.3 = 6s 0-60 time.....
05-06-2006 | 12:57 AM
#44
幹他媽!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 3
From: San Gabriel Valley, CA
FOFLMAO 
Originally Posted by 9291150
Why is it that whenever we have a post from a guy praising the 8, the same characters show up and start ****'n away. You guys are more regular than my bowel movements.
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
Oh, and people don't search...get over it!
05-06-2006 | 01:01 AM
#45
幹他媽!
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 3
From: San Gabriel Valley, CA
that's it, i'm switching to plantains... bananas are upsetting my stomach.
Originally Posted by Ike
If you're going to brag about how little displacement the Renesis has compared to piston engines it's a 2.6L. Also, how's your gas mileage?
Last edited by Detrich; 05-06-2006 at 02:49 AM.
05-06-2006 | 01:29 AM
#46
the giant tastetickles
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
From: in the basement
Originally Posted by Ike
If you're going to brag about how little displacement the Renesis has compared to piston engines it's a 2.6L. Also, how's your gas mileage?
05-06-2006 | 04:29 AM
#47
Registered
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
From: Georgetown
Maybe the renesis isn't a true 1.3, but to call it a 2.6 is even more retarded. Unless you can point out any 2.6 engine that weighs about 250 pounds and sits about 6 inches directly behind the centerline of the front wheels.
05-06-2006 | 04:30 AM
#48
Unknown
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by 9291150
Maybe the renesis isn't a true 1.3, but to call it a 2.6 is even more retarded. Unless you can point out any 2.6 engine that weighs about 250 pounds and sits about 6 inches directly behind the centerline of the front wheels.
very nicely said
05-06-2006 | 12:11 PM
#49
FULL FRONTAL ...downforce
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Missouri
Originally Posted by Ike
If you're going to brag about how little displacement the Renesis has compared to piston engines it's a 2.6L. Also, how's your gas mileage?
So we have established that Ike hates the 8.
05-06-2006 | 12:45 PM
#50
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally Posted by 9291150
Maybe the renesis isn't a true 1.3, but to call it a 2.6 is even more retarded. Unless you can point out any 2.6 engine that weighs about 250 pounds and sits about 6 inches directly behind the centerline of the front wheels.