I have to agree with you there, thank goodness there are affodable sports cars to have. It sure sucked in the last 90's when the only offering for a sports car , or budget performance car were a Mustang, Camaro/Firebird.

Present: Now we have many budget sports cars to chose from.Now the return of the Supra , in base(350HP) and TT(450+HP) form returns.

Its going to be an car enthusiast dream by '08/09. So many hot cars are going to be out by then and ones that won't break the budget!

 

In 2002 when I bought my first sportscar you could choose between the Miata and the MR2 Spyder. That was about it.

I don't think there is anything about the RX-8 (aside from the too soft shocks) that make it any less of a performance-oriented car than the Z.

 

I say 50.

 

I hate to push the sports car definition game further, but I can't think of any Camaro or Mustang as a sports car. They seem more like a modern interpretation of a muscle car.

But anyway, I agree. I believe we are living in a golden era for cars. Even a stock average family sedan (take a V6 Sonata for instance) could dust a high performance car from 20 or 30 years ago on the track. I have a feeling that ever increasing fuel concerns are going to bring this era to a close within the next 10 years.

 

Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers etc had their own classification back then. Those were Pony cars. Big engines in modified 2 door coupe versions of economy car chassis.

Muscle cars were big engines in 2 door hardtop versions of family sedans.


Guess you weren't around for the gas price increases, fuel shortages and gas lines of the 70's. This time around we got the price increases but most places never saw any lines.

 

Heh, I sorta did the same, I traded in my G35 (Skyline badging with a few exterior and performance mods here and there) for a new "seksy" RX8 ^_^

 

What characteristics would these be?

 

How about handling and cornering, and probably braking? With equal or better lap times around a circuit, it's obvious that with a tremendous torque and horsepower deficit versus the 350 that the RX-8 is able to overcome that and use its better balanced chassis to come out on top.

You should pick up old issues of mags that did comparisons, by the way.

 

I have read the mags, but I take their opinions with an open mind. It usually seems that mags favor a newer car over an older one, or a certain manufacturer over another. I like to base my decisions on real world figures and observations.

The only track comparison that was made (that I've seen) with both cars was done on Top Gear. Yes, both cars finished with the exact same time, but a) they were done on different days, and b) they were most likely driven by different drivers. Too many factors here to use this as a valid comparison.

Both cars a amazing machines. Very similar actually. One is a lighter, higher reving, "more agile". While the other is using more HP to make up for its additional weight, and is considered a "bulkier" car. I have driven both extensively (my parents have an 8) and the cornering of the Z feels more secure and planted to the road. I dont know if its because of the less body roll or the additional weight, but it did feel easier to drive fast. And no, that was not a biased observation. Both cars did seem to have very similar braking performance as well.

 

Sorry friend, but therer are many more magazine comparisons than the Top Gear one that you reference. I don't subscribe to many mags but the 2 that I have subscriptions to (Autoweek & Road & Track) both did extensive track comparisons. If you want to see them there have been tons of excerpts in the media section of this forum. Just make sure that you extend the search beyond 1 year since the articles were released a while back.

True, the editorial content of the mags will be influenced by many factors, but there would be very little risk for them to say bad things about the 8. Mazda's yearly advertising budget isn't big enough to threaten any editor.

I can respect your impressions, but you're one person with your own preferences and opinions. You feel that the z was easier to drive hard. That's fine. I can tell you that one of my buddies has owned 3 350z's and he still loves to jump in my 8 whenever I let him. He is always impressed by how easy he can drive it hard. I can tell you that another buddy that owns and races multiple vettes behaves the same way towards the 8. But you know what, they still haven't gone out and bought an 8 of their own. Personal preferences.

The mags do their testing fairly scientifically so they do have measurements to back up their "who's better" comparisons.

 

The Stig does all of their lap times.

 

I would agree with this, I have seen 3 separate vehicle comparisons between the 350Z and the RX-8 and each time the RX-8 came out on top. It usually boiled down to the fact that the RX-8's did every thing very well while the 350Z always had some weak spots. I personally love the 350Z and would kill for its torque in the RX but over all the RX is just a better car.

As for the 350Z being easier to drive hard I would completely disagree. I've only driven one once but found it more of a work out to drive hard. Also the magazine all pointed out that the RX was easier to drive hard.

One final note, The RX and Z both run in the same class for Autocross under the SCCA if you look up results you will see that the RX is consistently beating the Z and is often the top rated car in its class.

 

Yes, and the "Stig" is a fictional name. It is NOT the same driver every time.