med_mx6

(I'm more than happy to share , but isn't there some copyright infringement to this? )

Edit: Nevermind the technical difficulties, I attached it now...

What I thought was interesting was that based on the Final Results Table, adding up the "objective" scores, RX8 got 72 points, where as the Z got 71 points. Everything else is "subjective". Of course I still think the RX > Z subjectively too.

playdoh43

if you convert it to jpg, the file size will shrink to almost nothing

Phantom Menace

It's funny how different car forums "interpreted" the Car & Driver article differently. Personally, I haven't read the article. However, while surfing a 350z forum, I ran into this post, entitled "C&D: Z vs TT vs RX8 vs ShelbyGT"
It was interesting how no one posted that "the RX8 won." It was, not unlike this thread, more of a chest-pounding-self-righteous display of "glad I own 'this' car" posts...

Here's a quote from the OP, whom I've changed his S/N out of respect for his anonymity.

Interesting how the Z is always called "fat, bloated, porky, etc." but, according to this, it has the most BHP/lbs. of the lot. Hmmmm.

LionZoo

The article almost reads like Car and Driver didn't really want the RX-8 to win as the first half of the article is all about the flaws of the car and people tend to put more weight on what they read in the beginning. Also some damning words for the rotary engine, though really the rotary is a very polarizing engine and you either love it or hate it.

A couple things that I found interesting in the scoring:
The gap between the top two and bottom two was immense.
The 7 points the RX-8 gained for its rear seat space and comfort was the difference. Of course, the TT made points on its trunk.
The RX-8 scored a 7 for Engine NVH while the Mustang took that category with a 9. Huh?
Why is the Gotta Have It for the RX-8 so high? It's certainly not the latest and greatest.

Phantom Menace, the 350Z is called fat here because of its higher weight. Horsepower per pound has nothing to do with overall vehicle weight.

Kane

iTrader: (1)

THANKS Gentlemen. Reading it now.

ASH8

Great to see

Stavesacre21

I wouldn't fret...i scanned something awhile back from C&D as well, and as long as you don't go publishing it and selling it, nothing should ever happen from it.

May be a slight infrignement, but i don't think you'll have them knocking at your door anytime soon!

Thanx for the scan

OzarkMania

Thanks for posting the article!

In the last section buried between whining about the "wheezy engine" and lack of torque on the track was this...

"The suspension takes hits from the road like a champion prizefighter, so much so that during our driving loop the RX-8 was actually the fastest car on real-world roads."

Hey, that is where I drive.

TimzSI

oh **** its Phantom Blue no wonder it won!

x 10 billion


I'm such a PB fan boy, its insane.

ac3mastuh

iTrader: (1)

w00t, another reason why the RX-8 simply > the Z

DailyDriver2k5

[QUOTE=Interesting how the Z is always called "fat, bloated, porky, etc." but, according to this, it has the most BHP/lbs. of the lot. Hmmmm. [/QUOTE]

No its fat,bloated and porkish "looking"....other than that , the 350Z is a performer. Trust me the 350Z is all around performer, but i can't get past its looks or else i would be driving one as we speak. The bloated happy jelly bean look is not for me.

Phantom Menace

Really........Hmmmm....

Have you drive one before? Was it...a test drive? Hmmmm....

NgoRX8

iTrader: (1)

you guys haven't seen the potential of a modded Z. it is soo sex.

Phantom Menace

Bro, I don't think anyone has seen the potential of a fully-modded VQHR. Stupid aftermarket so damn slow!


Anyhoo, thanks to this damn article, my "Rotorhead" wife has challeged me to a knock down, drag-out to settle this once and for all....

CyprusRX8

Thanks for the scan Med-Mx6

Design1stCode2nd

Looks are so subjective. I think the Z is better looing than the 8 myself. Not huge on the front end of the Z but the rest of it looks nice. It's a good car, better than a mustang just not exceptionally nimble and the supension is more punishing.

More on looks, I actually like the new TT design best of all, but then I liked the old one as well.

NgoRX8

iTrader: (1)

i was refering mostly to dailydriver2k5's comment of "bloated and porkish 'looking'." i've seen some awesome looking Zs out there with nice #s to back it up also.

btw... you know you gotta let your wife win right?

Phantom Menace

Yeah, well I guess there's no accounting for taste. One man's veal is another man's pork chop, I guess...

I dunno, this article has got a lot of egos inflated, by both 350 and 8 owners. I mean, the comparo is anything but through...cabin noise, acceleration times, skid pad, etc. Its great as a guide for a potential buyer for any of the four cars. The problem is, people read it and the "verdict" becomes "law." Feel me? All them damn "on paper" racers who are seeking fame and glory thorugh magazine articles and manufacturer's brochures. "See! Mines can do it in 5.9 and yours is only 5.7, I'd beat you anyday! I'm the new DK!" Pfft. These are professional drivers on closed circuit tracks. Spring Mountain Motorsports Ranch is not your local interstate, stop light, or shopping mall's parking lot...or even favorite back road, even. I dare anyone to get these times on anyone of these stock cars on the street...or even a parking lot! (DISCLAIMER: That was rhetoric; DO NOT RACE on public streets! I ALREADY know no one can duplicate these times outside of a track and a bunch of driving lessons.)

But they forgot the MOST important factor! The individual's needs and what THEY are looking for in a car. For example, C&D gave the backseats, and for many rightly so, a ton of points. Now the Free-Titty, being a 2 seater automatically looses a lot of points. But what they have to understand is, if a person is looking at the Z for a purchase, then they've alread reconcilled not having back seats with their purchase. Same with the 8 and "private jet" like fuel consumption, a topic beaten to death with spoons and blunt objects on here. Everyone knows the rotary is no Hybrid, thus, anyone interested in an RX vehicle would've alread considered the extra expenses at the pump for a smooth, high revving engine, no?

For someone with absolutlely generic needs and no idea about any of these cars, going into a purchase, then its a great GUIDE. But these folkers need to stop treating this damn article like its the 10 Commandments..."MY PURCHASE HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED! NO LONGER WILL MY COWORKERS MAKE FUN OF MY CAR AND I'LL FINALLY GET SOME RESPECT!" Pfft. C'mon, does that sound like someone youse guys want to be?

Brah...I don't think I'll have a choice, she'll take me in...*dun, dun, dun*...the TWISTIES! And she'll do it with the kids in the backseat, a trunk full of groceries, and her homegirl sitting shotgun talking **** about my "porky" whip...

TALAN7

What really hurts the RX8 is the 0-60 times and more importantly the 0-100 times. The 8 is almost 6 full seconds off the Z and Stang at 100. That's deplorable! Mazda needs only shave half of that time off the 8 and none of these cars would be able to touch it on the track.

The 8's only weakness since inception which it still has now is its lack of power/torque. With 30 more hp and 30 more lbs of torque coming on at a much lower rpm, the 8 would be comparable in straight line performance (something it's not even close to now). I'm not saying it should be a drag car. It just needs its power level brought up to it chassis level. The others are power over chassis (maybe not the TT, that's why it came in 2nd).

The reason why the 8 gets so much slack is that it's driving around with it's achilles heal painted red for all to see. Not so much with these other cars. It also shows that power covers a multitude of sins and that a chassis, not matter how excellent it is needs an engine just as good.

Phantom Menace

My point exactly....

Have you ever considered that...maybe...just maybe...the 8 handles so well because it has just the right amount of torque/HP and is not bogged down trying to put nuts to the road? Maybe, just maybe the chasis feels so damn rigid and planted because there isn't a monsterous amount of torque twisting and bending at it? Maybe, it's light because it has a small-*** motor that puts out as much as some twice its displacement? Maybe, adding more HP will make it handle less...I dunno..."light?" "MORE TORQUE, MORE WHP!" I read this everywhere! Corvette owners want more, 8 owners want more...its like crack! If you had 6 lbs. of crack, would you really smoke it all in one sitting? Could you really USE 100 more HP? Or would it make your office buddies stop ragging on your 1.3L? How about a bigger "pair?" Maybe that is the problem, not the Renesis...

Oh, like no one over exaggerates how Mustangs are POS'es that last two, maybe three years. And no on knows that TTs are overpriced, and wrong wheel drive? Wait...wait...lemme guess...And no one knows that the Z could use to lose a few pounds, have a nicer interior, and maybe have a 2+2 option? I just coughed that outta my ***, right? These aren't the EXACT same cliches used by EVERYBODY to make fun of other people's cars? And where do they [cliches] come from? *dun, dun, dun* Magazine articles and comparos! To say to someone, "Buh, yeah...your car doesn't have back seats so mines is better!" Is not only childish, its unoriginal and just plain retarded. Same goes with, "Well, I'll beat you in the qwatter...here! Look at the magazine!" This is like fantasy football! Can't you see it! When people talk about their favorite team and say, "we beat you guys...we're going to the Superbowl!" MENTAL MASTURBATION! What's it mean in REAL LIFE? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Notice most of the guys who actually track their cars, don't say this kind of bullsh!t. They ALREADY know who is faster, with THEM driving the car...not the magazine reporter! And those guys don't complain about backseats, cheap interior, gas mileage, etc. So if you're going to live in "their" world that's one thing, but to live in the pragmatic, commuting, daily driving, world is another. To do both, is ALWAYS a compromise. Thus, you will never have the "perfect" car that "does it all."


You...are...my...point!

CarAndDriver

Thank goodness for points in categories other than engine performance.

Thanks for the scan!

9291150

Never liked the old TT, but the new one has me interested. That interior is gorgeous.

Funny thing about the test, the engine NVH score was only a 7 for the 8 vs. a 9 for the Mustang..they must have that reversed.

LionZoo

Bravo. I've been trying to say that for quite awhile now; you can't just bolt in more power and expect it to weigh the same. Though chassis rigidity and engine torque doesn't matter, you will need heavier driveline components and stiffer suspension tuning to deal with more power, not to mention probably a heavier engine. Well put Phantom Menace.

m477

A little late to the party, but some comments....

Mustang: This would be my first choice if I got to borrow one of these cars for the weekend. Big burnouts and other juvenile fun.
TT: If money was no object, I'd be very tempted by the TT. Great "real world" car, wonderful interior.
RX-8: Definitely the best overall choice for what I would spend my own money on.
350Z: ... ?

ZoomZoomH

iTrader: (1)

unsubs before this turns into a '***** mightier' thread...