Notices
RX-8 Discussion General discussion about the RX-8 that doesn't fit in one of the specialty forums.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

Hooray for Weight Reduction! ! ! !

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 01-27-2003 | 09:54 AM
  #26  
Mazdaspeedgirl's Avatar
Lollygagger
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
dude, you should hear me when I get going...hardly anyone laughs at my stupid jokes, then I say "okay. well, I thought it was funny. :D " or "ALLLLLrighty then!"

I can imagine hearing you say it...:D
Old 01-27-2003 | 10:02 AM
  #27  
Fëakhelek's Avatar
Thread Starter
Señor Member
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Johnstown, Pennsylvania USA
I usually say, "I guess you had to be there." :D
Old 01-27-2003 | 09:16 PM
  #28  
revhappy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Quick_lude

But, the top three cars are much smaller then the 8 and let's not even talk about the comfort/space in the rear seats. I've sat in all three of these and there is no comparison of rear seat space between these cars and the 8. Even my Prelude which has very similar dimensions and weighs 2950lbs gets put to shame when comparing rear seat space.
While I agree that I am a little dissapointed myself because of all the hype around the 2900lbs mark and now it seems like we're looking at 3000+.. but this car is still the only RWD offering in the below $40K Cnd class with very good power/weight ratio and sports car handling... Yes the WRX is there too but I can't get past the interior/exterior styling.. it's just plain fugly to me.. shrug.

I wouldn't say MUCH smaller.

RX8: GSR Celica GTS SVT WRX

Height 52.8 in. 52.6 in. 51.4 in. 56.3 in. 56.7 in.
Width: 69.7 in. 67.3 in. 68.3 in. 66.9 in. 68.1 in.
Lth.: 174.3 in. 172.4 in 170.5 in. 168.1 in. 173.4 in.
WB: 106.4 in. 101.2 in. 102.4 in. 103.0 in. 99.4 in.
Rear 53.3 in. 48.8 in. 50.6 in. 53.5 in. 52.9 in.
Shoulder
Room
Rear Leg 32.3 in. 28.1 in. 27.0 in. 37.6 in. 33.0 in.
Room
Rear Head 36.2 in. 35.0 in. 35.0 in. 38.1 in. 36.7 in.
Room

For me, my only use for rear seats, is to store a few things every now and then, and perhaps to take my family's dog somewhere occasionally (with seat covers!) when i go home to visit. I don't care about rear passenger comfort, if they want to ride back there, then they better not complain is my attitude! Besides, a small back seat allows me to only date smaller, more flexible women :p j/k.

Still, I can probobly live with the approximate 3,000 lb RX8 provided its near tops in its class in handling. So far the preliminary reviews seem to indicate this, but we'll see soon hopefully.
Old 01-27-2003 | 09:25 PM
  #29  
Puppy1's Avatar
Pure Unadulterated Fun
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
From: Monterey Park, CA
Originally posted by revhappy
...provided its near tops in its class in handling. So far the preliminary reviews seem to indicate this...
There are *NO* other cars in this class!
Old 01-27-2003 | 11:16 PM
  #30  
Net.Metro's Avatar
Registered
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: USA
Originally posted by revhappy



I wouldn't say MUCH smaller.

I drive a 2000 Celica GTS now, and I sat in RSX in car show not long ago. GTS inside is a little smaller than RSX, especially the +2 seat. But 2500 lbs GTS is amazing light for a FF coupe. Cannot tell how small the GTS compare to RX-8 until a test drive. But I would bet it is closer to RSX.
Old 01-27-2003 | 11:28 PM
  #31  
Quick_lude's Avatar
Love to rev!
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
From: Mississauga - Ontario
I dunno.. I test drove the Celica, put the front seat where I needed it to be and the seatback was almost touching the rear seat. Very cramped compared to the RX-8.
Old 01-28-2003 | 12:17 AM
  #32  
7racer's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Here is a recent test drive of the Rx-8 by motortrend...

it says the curb weight is 2933

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0301_rx8/
Old 01-28-2003 | 12:27 AM
  #33  
ZoomZoom's Avatar
Drive it like U stole it!
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
From: Woodbridge, Ontario
Let's hope they are right about the weight. :D
Old 01-28-2003 | 12:30 AM
  #34  
SmokingClutch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: PA
"Ford Focus SVT: FWD, 2.0 liter 170 HP, 145 lb.-ft. torque, 2,593 lbs."

Every published figure I have seen for the SVT Focus puts it at between 2700 and 2800 lbs. Where'd you get this number?
Old 01-28-2003 | 12:46 AM
  #35  
wakeech's Avatar
mostly harmless
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
From: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Originally posted by ZoomZoom
Let's hope they are right about the weight. :D
as mentioned in the thread abotu the AutoBild article, which i'm pretty sure is far more recent that this one is (they talked about driving the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca), they quoted the mass at 1330kg, which is 2930lb.-and-change... so, maybe it's true?? ??
Old 01-28-2003 | 10:22 AM
  #36  
revhappy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Originally posted by SmokingClutch
"Ford Focus SVT: FWD, 2.0 liter 170 HP, 145 lb.-ft. torque, 2,593 lbs."

Every published figure I have seen for the SVT Focus puts it at between 2700 and 2800 lbs. Where'd you get this number?
I got it from Edmunds for the 2 door hatchback, I think the four door version was in the range you suggest. Then again, Edmunds could have the wrong figures.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
escapedan
RX-8 Racing
58
02-10-2020 07:11 PM
New_Mazda_Guy
NW RX-8 Forum
14
09-19-2019 12:20 PM
fourwhls
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
7
02-20-2019 06:16 PM
hufflepuff
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
6
05-30-2016 11:45 AM
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 02:53 PM



You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Hooray for Weight Reduction! ! ! !



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM.