Same.

 

Is there any word on weight for the next gen?

Edit-

Just checked the z board again. Props to the balanced and fair evaluation of both the 8 and Z by "RX-8 Guy." Well said and thought out!

 

Sure the 8 is fast enough for most drivers, but I think it could be a bit quicker. I'm not one of those who say the 8 needs another 100HP, but it could stand another 25-50HP. Enough to get the 8 a good 0-60 in the high 5's without resorting to needing delicate and skilled high RPM drops.

 

Yeah, I'm the ignorant one... Go look up the difference between a GT, Shelby GT, and a Shelby GT500, then notice no one but you is talking about the GT500 but you. Once again, you've been owned.

 

Here are the numbers from the comparo if anyone cares.

1/4 mile
13.7 @ 104 (Z)
13.7 @ 104 (Shelby GT)
14.6 @ 97 (TT)
15.0 @ 93 (RX-8)

0-30mph
2.0 (Z)
2.1 (Shelby GT)
2.2 (RX-8)
2.4 (TT)

0-60mph
5.1 (Shelby GT)
5.2 (Z)
6.0 (TT)
6.5 (RX-8)

0-100mph
12.6 (Z)
12.6 (Shelby GT)
15.4 (TT)
18.0 (RX-8)

LB per BHP
10.9 (Z)
11.1 (Shelby GT)
13.2 (RX-8)
14.8 (TT)

 

You know Ike, last time I checked Car and Driver posted more than just acceleration numbers or did they decide to run the entire comparo inside a dragstrip this time?

 

I don't have the issue yet, I just posted what I found on the net.

 

^ I think the car is getting slower! That probably the slowest times I've seen for the 8 in any of the major mags...0-100 in 18 sec???

 

Stop getting your panties in wad.... I am stating the obvious as you can see. Nobody is starting trouble... and for that " i drove a 350Z and it sucked" comment.... i did drive a 350Z and it doesn't suck. If you look at any of my previos post i think the 350Z is a great performer just like the previous Z cars of the past and that i have owned.

My gripe is the fugly body style.Period.

 

Yeah that was a pretty slow run for the 8..... oh well at least we know its not norm for the RX-8, rather the latter.

 

the engine probably wasn't fully broken in yet. If you look at C&D's long term test car from a couple years ago, it ran similar numbers until the engine had 15 or 20k miles on at which point it ran in the mid 14's for the quarter mile.

 

All of them should have been a little quicker considering the trap speeds.. Probably a conditions thing. The trap speed for the 8 isa little lower than most mags but also more like what drivers here are/were getting. Also, the RX-8 has gained a little weight through the years according to listed curb weights.

 

I agree the RX-8 could use 60HP to 100HP more and do 0-60 in the low 5s.

Ike, I think somebody revved the hell out of an RX-8 and got 5.9 or 5.8 in the 0-60, so it would at least get the Audi TT.

Plain and simple, the RX-8 is close to being the perfect inexpensive sports "coupe", if it had a little more HP.

 

The RX8 could handle another 50-100hp easy. Look at the MS3, FWD 260hp. A Vette has 400hp and it seems to stay straight.

 

And was just announced that its getting a 30Hp boost for all '08 C6. So yeah...the RX-8 could use a cool 100HP more.

 

What trim level was tested? I know the early run RX-8 test in Car and Driver (the comparo between the G35 and the Mustang Cobra) used a base/Sport mule; the curb weight listed for that one was 2940, the lowest I've seen. Road & Track's GT tester weighed 3000. Over the years, the RX-8 has gained maybe 30-40 pounds from the new battery, new starter, and heat shield and engine mount changes. Car and Driver's completely loaded with everything GT long termer is the heaviest listed RX-8 I've ever seen at 3079 and posted acceleration times similar to what CD got in this comparo when tested new. I think a bit more miles and the times would be a bit quicker, but also if a lower trim level was tested they could save perhaps almost 100 pounds.

 

My apologies then.

 

The 8 could use more power. My bike puts out the close to the same horsepower at the wheels and weighs 500lbs. Mazda engineers should drop 300lbs and add a +50~70hp supercharger. That would make the 8 handle better and increase performance. This can be done for a reasonable cost. MazdaSpeed label it and we'd have a killer.

 

Well, I, for one, refuse to get too excited about their verdict. For if they had ruled otherwise, rated the 8 last, my response would've been "Screw them, what do they know?" So I'm not gonna get all excited because they happened to agree with me this time.

 

All the early tests in a few mags were done with a prototype non production car. I'm not sure what trim level it was since my postman seems to be reading it cover to cover before he gives it to me.

 

if the rx8 lost 300 lbs and gained 50hp it would kick ***

 

For number peepers, the rx8 loses. But for those that drive cars, it always ended up winning. Weird huh?

 

Can someone scan this thing please? I am in the Mid East and I wont see it for 3 months if no one scans it.... pretty please.

 

The Car and Driver car was a prototype, but the Road & Track one was a production car. The pictures that they have in the article is the silver Frankenstein GT with no sunroof, but they actually tested a red production GT. The trim level tested in this comparo was a loaded GT with nav.

 

this is definately an interesting take on the issue...because i'm sure that a GREATER percentage of people here would respond in the exact same way