Hindsight RX-7 vs Rx-8 which is or was the better Car?
11-13-2007, 04:48 PM
#176
Juris Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I'm trying to convert anyone here... but I don't see why everyone here says the RX-8 is the better car... the numbers speak for themselves.
RX-8
Renesis 1.3L N/A 232 Hp
2900-3100lbs curb weight
14.5@96mph
.88g skidpad
66mph slalom
60-0mph 116ft
RX-7
1.3L Twinturbo 255hp
2700-2850 curbweight (depending on R1 vs. touring)
13.9@101mph
.99g skidpad
69.8mph slalom
60-0ft 113ft
Sorry, FD3S RX-7 still king of the rotary world.
RX-8
Renesis 1.3L N/A 232 Hp
2900-3100lbs curb weight
14.5@96mph
.88g skidpad
66mph slalom
60-0mph 116ft
RX-7
1.3L Twinturbo 255hp
2700-2850 curbweight (depending on R1 vs. touring)
13.9@101mph
.99g skidpad
69.8mph slalom
60-0ft 113ft
Sorry, FD3S RX-7 still king of the rotary world.
11-13-2007, 04:52 PM
#181
Are you serious? I have to say, the rx8 is not attractive compared to the rx7. Only thing that bothers me about the appearance of the rx7 is the hideaway lights. Otherwise, I love it. And I am sure most people would agree rx8 appearance < rx7 appearance.
11-13-2007, 04:54 PM
#183
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re:
What's up with the RX-8 and RX-7 guys bashing? Both cars are good, period. They were both designed for two completely different reasons.
RX-7 is a crazy good track car, so much so after the first year they had to come out with a softer suspension.
RX-8 is a amazingly practical sports car, decent trunk, full room for 4 adults, expecially compared to a new Mustang GT.
Two very different cars, why are they compared? Only because they both have rotaries and are made by Mazda? There's a reason Mazda didn't call the SE3P a FE RX-7, it's a completely different car.
Should we compare a C5 Corvette to a 4-gen Camaro? They both are made by Chevy and they both have LS1. Corvette is great track car like RX-7, Camaro? Good engine for the value but old solid-rear axle, and only babies can sit in the rear seats, but good money for the engine non-the-less.
RX-7 is a crazy good track car, so much so after the first year they had to come out with a softer suspension.
RX-8 is a amazingly practical sports car, decent trunk, full room for 4 adults, expecially compared to a new Mustang GT.
Two very different cars, why are they compared? Only because they both have rotaries and are made by Mazda? There's a reason Mazda didn't call the SE3P a FE RX-7, it's a completely different car.
Should we compare a C5 Corvette to a 4-gen Camaro? They both are made by Chevy and they both have LS1. Corvette is great track car like RX-7, Camaro? Good engine for the value but old solid-rear axle, and only babies can sit in the rear seats, but good money for the engine non-the-less.
11-13-2007, 04:58 PM
#186
17 second FD
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, New York
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your comments are contradicting what your other members are saying. You would be a better help to them if you stayed out of this debate/argument/pissing contest.
11-13-2007, 05:05 PM
#188
Juris Doctor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's up with the RX-8 and RX-7 guys bashing? Both cars are good, period. They were both designed for two completely different reasons.
RX-7 is a crazy good track car, so much so after the first year they had to come out with a softer suspension.
RX-8 is a amazingly practical sports car, decent trunk, full room for 4 adults, expecially compared to a new Mustang GT.
Two very different cars, why are they compared? Only because they both have rotaries and are made by Mazda? There's a reason Mazda didn't call the SE3P a FE RX-7, it's a completely different car.
Should we compare a C5 Corvette to a 4-gen Camaro? They both are made by Chevy and they both have LS1. Corvette is great track car like RX-7, Camaro? Good engine for the value but old solid-rear axle, and only babies can sit in the rear seats, but good money for the engine non-the-less.
RX-7 is a crazy good track car, so much so after the first year they had to come out with a softer suspension.
RX-8 is a amazingly practical sports car, decent trunk, full room for 4 adults, expecially compared to a new Mustang GT.
Two very different cars, why are they compared? Only because they both have rotaries and are made by Mazda? There's a reason Mazda didn't call the SE3P a FE RX-7, it's a completely different car.
Should we compare a C5 Corvette to a 4-gen Camaro? They both are made by Chevy and they both have LS1. Corvette is great track car like RX-7, Camaro? Good engine for the value but old solid-rear axle, and only babies can sit in the rear seats, but good money for the engine non-the-less.
I've owned an 88 TII, 93 FD touring, and my current 93.
We're all in love with the rotary engines. But I agree two different cars. And this whole "better" argument is truly just annoying. To me, Numbers speak. Not subjective banter.
11-13-2007, 05:08 PM
#191
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re:
Did a FD RX-7 beat you in a race?
I hope the guys on RX7club don't find one guy that bashes the RX-7 on here indicative of us all, I for one find the FDs sexy. Would be dumb if they bashed our RX-8s, looks are subjective, and each car has it's pros and cons no question about that.
As for the track potential of the RX-8, Isami Amemiya himself on video said he believes the car has the most potential, that the suspension and chassis is superior but the engine is lacking only. Once the RX-8s have been out for awhile and the track cars have their power tuned, they'll prove themselves. The RX-7 has already proven itself on many tracks.
I hope the guys on RX7club don't find one guy that bashes the RX-7 on here indicative of us all, I for one find the FDs sexy. Would be dumb if they bashed our RX-8s, looks are subjective, and each car has it's pros and cons no question about that.
As for the track potential of the RX-8, Isami Amemiya himself on video said he believes the car has the most potential, that the suspension and chassis is superior but the engine is lacking only. Once the RX-8s have been out for awhile and the track cars have their power tuned, they'll prove themselves. The RX-7 has already proven itself on many tracks.
11-13-2007, 05:09 PM
#192
printf("</%i pistons",3);
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: I'm a yankee trapped in Houston!!
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. Certain owners from both sides really need to grow up. Since when did 7 & 8 owners become rivals?
Some of you (and you know who you are) need to realize that no one wants to hear your pointless bashing. FDs are unreliable; we know this, why the **** are you polluting the forums with brainless taunts and bashes over the matter. 8's are the slowest kids on the block; once again we all ******* know this.
And who gives a **** about how many ******* seats you have? Read the thread title again. Where the hell does it say anything about practicality vs. sportiness?
The 8 does a good job of being a sporty 4-seater.
The 7 does a good job of being a sporty 2-seater.
The. *******. End.
Can we not wage war over the purely subjective topic of "more seats = better car?" Wouldn't it be more engaging and enlightening to compare which car pulled off it's build better?
For example, the legendary status of the 7 would suggest that it did an excellent job of being a 2-seater sports car. However, it does have a reputation for being attrociously unreliable. Now, the 8, when professionally reviewed, wins 1st place with astonishing consistancy. However, it's plagued with a reputation for being slow, and it's predecessor's unreliability reputation has carried over from the 7 despite the decade-long hiatus of rotary cars in the US.
Intelligent discussion question: Given the areas of success & failure of the 7 & 8, which would you say, with timelines of availibility and production taken into account, did the better job of conquering its nitch in the marketplace?
(P.S.: Answers like "TeH 8 cUZ tthe RX- 7scuKEd mY nUtzzzzzz" are neither encouraged nor English)
Some of you (and you know who you are) need to realize that no one wants to hear your pointless bashing. FDs are unreliable; we know this, why the **** are you polluting the forums with brainless taunts and bashes over the matter. 8's are the slowest kids on the block; once again we all ******* know this.
And who gives a **** about how many ******* seats you have? Read the thread title again. Where the hell does it say anything about practicality vs. sportiness?
The 8 does a good job of being a sporty 4-seater.
The 7 does a good job of being a sporty 2-seater.
The. *******. End.
Can we not wage war over the purely subjective topic of "more seats = better car?" Wouldn't it be more engaging and enlightening to compare which car pulled off it's build better?
For example, the legendary status of the 7 would suggest that it did an excellent job of being a 2-seater sports car. However, it does have a reputation for being attrociously unreliable. Now, the 8, when professionally reviewed, wins 1st place with astonishing consistancy. However, it's plagued with a reputation for being slow, and it's predecessor's unreliability reputation has carried over from the 7 despite the decade-long hiatus of rotary cars in the US.
Intelligent discussion question: Given the areas of success & failure of the 7 & 8, which would you say, with timelines of availibility and production taken into account, did the better job of conquering its nitch in the marketplace?
(P.S.: Answers like "TeH 8 cUZ tthe RX- 7scuKEd mY nUtzzzzzz" are neither encouraged nor English)
11-13-2007, 05:12 PM
#193
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(all new) I owned a 1988 rx7 turbo, then a 1990 300zx. The rx7's 3'rd gen, were to ugly for me to get.
You people buy these old cars thinking you are cool, but when they were new, they weren't that cool. I was there, and they were ugly then, and still are.
You people buy these old cars thinking you are cool, but when they were new, they weren't that cool. I was there, and they were ugly then, and still are.
Last edited by 4me2; 11-13-2007 at 05:19 PM.
11-13-2007, 05:24 PM
#194
17 second FD
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, New York
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIAF. That is all.
11-13-2007, 05:26 PM
#196
printf("</%i pistons",3);
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: I'm a yankee trapped in Houston!!
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ttrx7pete
We're all in love with the rotary engines. But I agree two different cars. And this whole "better" argument is truly just annoying. To me, Numbers speak. Not subjective banter.
Numbers give a good outline on a car's performance, but in a thread about retrospective and comparing cars against each other with their different builds taken into account, you need more than just engine and suspension stats.
Yes, the FD kicks the 8's face in every category when looking at HP, Torque, weight, ect. However, given that it's got 2 less seats and wasn't intended to be practical at all, it damn well better win in every category on paper. The trick now is to take it's age into perspective and intelligently determine weather or not it did as well for a 2-seater back in '93 as the 8 did for a 4-seater in '04.
Looking at the other legends in the 90's, there were faster cars out there, and there were some that definately gave the FD a run for its money in the corners. Now, as we all know, there are competators for the 8 that are faster, and there are a few who give it a run for its money in the turns. The million dollar question is this: Who has the narrower gaps, the FD or the 8?
11-13-2007, 05:34 PM
#200
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm... I don't get this.
RX-7 vs RX-8:
Number of seats is different.
Number of doors is different.
Style is different.
Purpose is different.
Each buyers' priorities are different.
How can we compare this?
RX-7 vs RX-8:
Number of seats is different.
Number of doors is different.
Style is different.
Purpose is different.
Each buyers' priorities are different.
How can we compare this?