redneck

 

I've never had a problem with AAFES gas.

 

Maybe it's just the gas on Beale! Maybe where you are they get better quality than they do here? I know that the absolute only time my car has that much difficulty starting is when I use the gas from AAFES on Beale. I've mentioned it to a few friends there and they mentioned having similar problems. Either way that is the only thing it could be considering that when I have a full tank of anything else it doesn't happen!

BTW, I personally didn't have the problem with other cars I've had in the past just this one!

 

Ok, let's look at "average joe" cars in "average joe" driving conditions. Under average joe driving conditions, you won't be revving up to 8000 rpm and dropping the clutch against every Honda Odyssey minivan that lines up next to you (unless you want to look like a complete idiot). So, after a quick look through recent C&Ds (as suggested by a previous poster), here's how the RX-8 stacks up against some average joe cars (not mentioned in my previous port) in a street start (5-60) test:

Nissan Altima SE-R 6.4
Pontiac G6 GTP 6.5
Toyota RAV4 Limited 6.5
GMC Yukon Denali 6.6
Acura RL 6.9
Chevy Malibu Maxx SS 6.9
VW GTI 6.9
Pontiac Bonneville GXP 7.0
Acura RSX Type-S 7.2
Ford Mustang V6 7.2
VW Jetta GLI 7.2
Mazda 6s 7.3
Buick Lucerne CXS 7.4
Chrysler PT Cruiser GT Vert 7.4
Honda Odyssey 7.4
Audi A4 3.0 7.5
Honda Civic Si 7.5
Mazda RX-8 7.5
Lincoln Zephyr 7.6
Volvo V50 T5 7.6
Jeep Commander 7.7
Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart 7.7
Nissan Titan 7.7
Saab 9-7X 5.3i 7.7
Toyota Camry Solara Vert 7.7
Toyota Corolla XRS 7.7

Please don't take my comment out of context. I said that 1/4 mile time is a better gauge of performance than 0-60 times, which was suggested by a previous poster. The RX-8 does much better on a road course than its horsepower numbers would indicate. However, the majority of the big talkers on this forum will never take their car to the track, and probably 99.9% of the miles driven on RX-8s will be on the street.

Please don't perceive me as someone who dislikes the RX-8; I actually love ours. But someone needs to offer some balance to all the RX-8 leghumpers on here who can't stand for someone to point out the problems with the 8. And, the fact is, based on the street start data, the RX-8's performance on the street is "average".

I agree with you on this. The FD was a spectacular car. You would have expected the next generation rotary sports car to be at least equal to, if not better than it. And I think this is one of the big reasons for the RX-8's poor sales. It is disappointing when compared to the previous generation (which is 10+ years old). Cue the leghumpers..."It's not supposed to replace the RX-7!!!!"

 

At least you can buy more power for the 8. There is no cure for ugly, with the sti.

 

Oh God, now it's 5-60mph.

What next, 15-48mph?

I'm going to create a Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Lancer EVO forums so Eric and Ike have a place to post minutia.

Oh wait; those forums already exist.

 

Acceleration is only one from of performance, but more often than not, the only one that matters, I'd say.

All most people need or care about is torque. And in that world, the RX8 is not that fast.

 

You know, I wouldn't argue with that number except in the real world very rarely would someone start off at 5mph. The only time I see 5mph is when I'm driving through a parking lot. Even when I roll up to a light that just changes, maybe it's the way I coast to a stop but I rarely if ever see 5mph. I have seen someone describe this test as a test for torque. You can have that one, I don't have an answer except we all know the 8 lacks in torque.



My bad! Didn't mean to do that, I know it happens to me frequently enough in this place! Maybe it was the timing of when I read it! I can agree there are a fair amount of people like that here. I don't take mine to the track yet but then again I don't think I'm one of the big talkers, at least I hope I'm not!



LOL...Okay, I have to agree this place can be like a pound full of horny dogs with some poor 1 legged guy being locked in the cage with them! I sometimes find myself defending the Evo and STI here. So I definitely have to agree balance is needed here!



That is kinda the flaw to the whole argument. You imply you understand "It's not supposed to replace the RX-7!!!" but honestly you seem to still expect it to! Especially when you word it "compared to the previous generation"! There is no NA RX-7 that is faster than the RX-8 in stock form and that is a fact. It is in fact a step forward for the rotary lineage! If you really wanted to compare it to the FD you would be better off waiting to see if Mazda actually releases a Turbo or Supercharged Mazdaspeed version. IMO you saying that is similar to saying "why doesn't the Pontiac GTO measure up to the Corvette? It has the same engine!". Yeah it has the same engine but it's overall execution was not the same! Yeah I know, it's hard for people not to compare it to the FD but that's something that people need to stop doing so they can see it for what it is!

Again the RX-8 is compromised! The redline could have probably been higher and they could have stiffened the suspension and/or even gave it more aggressive gearing!

 

I test drove an 8 with three people in the car. Full sized adults, including my 200 pd dad. Slow was never a word that crossed my mind. I don't buy that horsepower is the problem. BMW's purposely don't add 5 million horsepower to their 3 series, because they care more about balance. A new 325i 6 speed can do 0-60 in 6.1 seconds (according to car and driver) and only has 210 horsepower. You can get a nicely equipped one for 32-33 no sport package. In my opinion, its still the Mazda name coupled with not a huge bright light on the rotary that hampers its sales. Couple that with how difficult it is to sell unreal bad mileage for a 1.3 liter small rotary and it makes sense. Would the 8 sell more with 280 hp? Maybe, but I doubt its the main reason for the lack of sales recently. Peoples' mindset doesn't think mazda when they think hip sports car.

 

True, but who thinks of an STI as hip? I think they're terrible looking, and I would prefure Mazda over Subaru as far as brands...so now do you believe it's the numbers?

 

You left out a notable one...S2000 6.9 (C&D). Considering the similar torque and power curve, with the gearing going to the S2000, 0.6sec diff sounds about right.

 

STI Eric, let me try to argue wit you at a level that you would understand....you are as stupid as you car is ugly. Just please, get lost!

I noticed you've not been a around for a while, its been great without you, please go back to making love to that big wing on your car, and your dreams of playing brokeback mountain with Colin McRae.

SUBARU Number #1...in 1995.

 

When the FD RX-7 started selling in 1992, those 255hp 13B-REW engines where considered excellent at that time. Even the 1999 update to 280hp was considered "plenty" back in 1999. (not that anyone outside Japan got this version)

Where people go wrong is associating the RX-7 with the RX-8 when in fact all they have is a basically common engine.

Each car has its own corner in automotive practicality.

Personally. I would accept the lower powered 13B-MSP engine & take the RX-8 for its "overall" package of practicality & user friendliness.

 

I usually like and agree with your posts 124. But having heard firsthand, the S2000 sounds WAY MORE strained than the 8 at redline. To say that its the weight from the extra sound insulation is silly. The S2000 is smaller, is a softop and carries only two, yet it weighs fewer than 200 pound less than the 8. Hardly a considerable difference condidering you're comparing a 4 door 4 passenger hardtop with a 2 door 2 passenger convertable.

Otherwise, you still have te best twosome in car-world, IMO!

 

I really don't know what you're referring to here. As my post took pains to say, I was merely saying that the engines of the two cars are equally "smooth," meaning that neither has any noticeable vibration. I went on to acknowledge that the RX-8 sounds different merely because you can hear the engine in the passenger compartment, because there's no sound insulation. Sure, the S2000 engine makes a lot of noise at redline, but you should hear the RX-8 engine at redline, without benefit of all that sound insulation--it's every bit as loud. The only reference I made to weight was to say that Honda didn't want to have that weight in the car, so they chose noise over weight.

And, lest you think that the noise you hear from the Honda engine is vibration, it's not. Try listening to a rotary engine with no muffler if you think that; you'll never think that again. Hell, try listening to a rotary engine at redline, with the hood up, standing next to the car. You'll never think that again.

Again, I do not know what you're referring to here.

The entire purpose of my post was merely to rebut the previous several posts which asserted that the RX-8 engine is "smoother" than the S2000 engine. Having spent dozens of days at the track with my Honda, I can assure that its engine is as smooth as they come.

That we do.

 

What numbers? Not sure what you're talking about. The STI has a schtick to it though. Near super-car performance for 30 grand. The Rx8 is it's rotary. But other then its light weight, its hard to sell what is so genuinely unique about it if it isn't That fast and has horrible mileage. The four door idea was done by Saturn, so to me that isn't that attractive. Plus having 4 doors might scare off some true to sports car enthusiasts.

.

 

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, then stay out. If you had your way, this forum would be a 24-hour circle jerk.

I could probably explain it 1000 times and you would never understand, but here goes: 5-60 is a "street start" or "rolling start". It is a measurement of a car's performance when you don't have the benefit of a launch. It puts things on a more even keel because it is not typical for you to do an 8000rpm clutch dump on the street.

See above. Don't look at it as "5 mph", look at it as a rolling start. The scenario is: you are at a stop light and it turns green. Instead of revving to 8000rpm and dropping the clutch, you engage the clutch and get a rolling start. This is a "street start".

It's not that I expect it to, it's that there are many, many people out there (including some RX-7 owners) who were disappointed by the fact that the next-gen rotary "sports car" does not compare favorably to the previous iteration. It doesn't matter if Mazda designed to be better or not, there was still the expectation...

I grabbed a small stack of C&Ds and pulled numbers from those. That list is by no means complete. Also, I left out cars like the S2000 which were already in my previous list of cars with similar 1/4 mile times.

Ah, yes, the fall back argument for the unintelligent: start calling names. I notice that have you no rebuttal to the facts that I present here. Get a life.

He is saying that he is not impressed with the S2000 because it "only" weighs 200 lbs less than the RX-8 even though the RX-8 seats 4. That is just his ignorance talking. He does not realize that convertibles weigh more due to having to make up for the lack of rigidity because of the missing roof. For example, the BMW 325i coupe weighs 3197 lbs and the covertible weighs 3560, a difference of 363 lbs. 9291150, in his infinite wisdom, thinks a convertible should weigh less because it doesn't have a roof.

 

Your "facts" say that a street start is more "real" because most don't launch at a 8000rpm clutch drop. IF IT IS A RACE THEY DO, otherwise why are you comparing acceleration times? Still, you can still get a nice launch without a 8000RPM drop. In the case of the 8, 5mph is 1000RPM, where it actually bogs. Nobody launches their 8 that way. By the way, you omitted the last WRX tested in Car & Driver that also did a 7.5 5-60. But who cares, its a useless stat; only a reflection of torque off idle, so what Mr Useless?

And as for the S2000. A small two seat softop designed FROM THE GROUND UP TO BE A SOFTOP SHOULD be light. I.e a Lotus Elise, a Miata. The only reason most other convertibles are heavier, like a 325, is that they were designed as hardtops first, and therefore require significant bracing when converted. The S2000 is not one of these, smartguy!

 

The problem with your list is with the cars that cost significantly more than the 8. Maybe, your rich and 25K is the same as 50K…but for us common folk, we can’t just move from 25K to 50K without losing our home and such.

If you want to bring this up, then stick to cars near the RX8’s price…basically, nothing over 33K. I got my 8 for 25K brand new (out the door) so at that price my list was even smaller. Honestly, I couldn’t get the EVO, STI, Mustang GT (close but a no go says the dealer), S2000, Legacy GT, 350Z, or G35 at that price.

That leaves me with the SRT-4 (fwd = evil in my book) which while impressive speed wise…ummm, that’s about it. The WRX is close also, but the looks ends that real quick. The Colbalt SS (I don’t think was around when I got my 8) but regardless is also FWD. Keep in mind that both these cars…for me at least, I don’t consider them even in the same league. The WRX is probably the best fit.

With that said, if your numbers are factual 5-60, that would be a soar spot to point out in the RX8 while when I go 5-60 it sure does not feel anything like 7.5….more like 6.5. I’ll have to try that and see…


While I agree there are RX8 leghumpers I think overall most of us are well aware and honest about the limitations of the RX8. I think it’s been stated many times, in the end of the day this is all a insignificant part of our daily drives and frankly personally…I’ve never been left ashamed of my 8’s power on the road other than when I (blame ME) put it in the wrong gear to accelerate.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow…I didn’t know this would become a flamefest.

I don’t discount the limitations of the RX8…never have, I know them very well, but the point of this is how focused people are on the numbers for the RX8….better said, the limitations of the RX8 as if there was a perfect car out there and as if you could judge performance by JUST 0-60 & 1/4 mile.

Every car has limitations and while most of us won’t go to a track (remember, some of us can’t afford to wreak our 8’s on a track and have other responsibilities family wise) on the track is where all the BS talk and constant focus on what the RX8 lacks becomes all but a distant memory as it puts cars with much more raw power and that cost more to shame.

Performance = more than one area, while for the common person it might just be 0-60 & ¼ mile times while I never really considered those people automotive enthusiast to begin with (well, drag enthusiast they are I guess)

I don’t discount those numbers either…who does not like fast acceleration????, but the way I see sports car’s is like I see athletes…I rather have one that is good in many area’s as compared to the one that is good in only one or two.

To conclude...relax everyone, no one is claiming the RX8 is the best car ever…we simply refuse to accept from the haters out there that it’s the worst either.

For what Mazda ment it to be, it did a fine job.

 

I wish some of you would wise up and not let yourselves be suckered into the pointless and misleading "numbers" debate. The 8 is powered by a different kind of engine which, in key ways, is very different from an ordinary piston engine. The rotary is not a torquey engine and never will be. Instead, it's very small, very smooth and needs to be wound. The advantage of being small is that engine placement leads to sublime feel and handling. The advantage of smoothness is that smooth is better than not-quite-as-smooth. And the advantage of revving is that, for many enthusiasts, revving an engine to 9K rpm is fun. The 8 is a very fast car if it's driven the way a rotary needs to be driven; if you drive it as if it had an ordinary piston engine it will not be as fast. I believe the 8 does 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. That's not the fastest 0-60 you'll find, but it's not slow either. But the 5.9 seconds is really beside the point. The 8 is not a car whose charms are reflected in numbers—it's all about feel and handling. There is no measurement for "feel" or "balance," unfortunately, but if there was, the 8 would be near the top of the list. Comparing the 8 to ordinary cars is like comparing an Apple to a PC or, better yet, an iPod to a non-iPod. Yeah, on paper PCs and non-iPods look good, maybe even better, but they're not as good because they don't have the special "feel" of the Apple products. If you don't understand this, fine. Be happy with your Dell computer and your Acme MP3 player and your Evo/WRX/whatever.

I like the way Automobile put it best:
"But it's senseless to go looking for the nature of the RX-8 in the numbers. It's just not that kind of car."

 

Just to echo a previous remark, you can't compare the 8 to cars that are $50k -- $30k would be closer to realistic.

Everyone here knows all the performance numbers of the 8. But there's a lot of people out there that don't understand what the rotary gives you and what it doesn't -- that's what this thread is all about.

If you look at the 0-60 times, 5-60 times, 1/4 mi times, and trap speeds, you can get an accurate picture about how this car performs throughout its entire powerband. This is what people who know even a little bit about cars know. The problem is there are a lot of idiots out there. With more desirable performance numbers they'll pine after this car creating more buzz about it as well as actually buying them.

I don't know if Mazda should necessarily cater to the masses like that, but all the little things that people here love to ignore about the 8 really do hurt the perception of the 8. Even if these perceptions are misguided and somewhat misinformed.

If Mazda releases a current-gen 8 with a turbo that offers some semblance of reliability and practicality (meaning not 8 mpg) for around $35k I believe they divert sales from the 350Z, S2000, Evo and STi. I don't know if they're going to sell a million of them, but it will start the change the perception of the 8 and more importantly Mazda in the sports car business.

 

I agree with your point, Three37ny, but I don't think you can't compare it at all. I'm not sure people argue against the uniqueness of the 8. I think perhaps just that it has some odd short-comings is what is agitating the doubters. The best comparison for the 8 would be the new Civic Si. High-revving, no torque, crotch rocket on wheels. That sums up the 8 to me. You can throw the RSX in there too, since its essentially the same car as the Civic Si. Since this dumb street start is now a pinacle point for arguers, the Civic Si does the same street start as the 8. The obvious point is that no torque ricers need a clutch burning to get a blast off start. So what?

The 8 is for balance, which is what a true enthusiast wants. The 8's number one competition, even over the 350z, is the mustang. Fast, cheap, pratical (big *** trunk) and now can do a .88 on the skidpad with its fat butt. That was done by car and driver WITH all-season tires. I'm hugely impressed by that. Guess what the downside is? Numb steering, numb chassis. I'd rather have a car with 100 horsepower if it has a better road connection then a car with 300. To me, the mustang is the 911, and the 8 is the boxter. GT versus balance. Everything is just about personal preference with this ongoing ridiculous argument of whether the 8 is fast or not. To me, fast is accelerating with a light body and minimal roll through a corner, without a hint of frustration from me or the car.

Proof in speed. I take a lot more proof in speed from track tests rather then 0-60. Take the show Top Gear for example. They tested a new 8 and put it through their track. It managed the exact same time as the M3 and 350z. So anyone who thinks the 8 has speed problems, stop thinking every car is drag racing. A real test of a car is balance. Can it not only be fast in a straight line, but carve up the corners as well?

Personal preference is what it really always comes down to. Doesn't mean the Z or Stang suck, or that the 8 is slow.

 

This is not a "I could have xxx horsepower for $xx,xxx" debate. Those are stupid. The OP posted "what if the RX-8 was .5 second faster", would sales be better? My response to this is twofold. First, I think that the performance of the RX-8, when compared to the previous generation rotary sports car, is not favorable. Second, if you look at it merely from a 1/4 mile or 0-60 perspective, you don't get the whole picture. Under normal driving circumstances (a street start, from a roll), the RX-8's performance numbers are not what you would expect from a sports car. Again, yes, the RX-8 performs well at the track, but the vast majority of 8 owners will never see a track, so we are talking real-world driving scenarios here.

C&D tested this 3 times, that I can find...their first issue when the do an RX-8 comparo (this was the 7.5 - and they made it a point to show that the penalty for the RX-8's street start is about double the penalty for most other cars), and at the beginning (7.4s) and end (7.2s) of their 40,000 mile road test. The numbers are pretty consistent.

Again, the OP was inquiring as to whether the RX-8 would have better sales if it had better 0-60 or 1/4 mile numbers. Since the RX-8 is deficient in these categories, this thread has now turned into a big circle jerk, with RX-8 owners straying from the OP's question and emphatically arguing that the RX-8 is a great handling car and excellent balance and who cares about acceleration.

Let me remind you that the "numbers debate" was started by an 8 owner who dared someone to go to C&D and find cars with better 0-60 times than the RX-8.

 

The guy you responded to just now WAS the OP.. I think he knows what he posted . Also, you keep saying "performance". You should probably be more specific and say "accerlation related performance" As acceleration is not the only measure of "performance" .

 

At the end of the day--you have what I like to consider faux car enthusiast--those that immediatly look for the 0-60 time in the magazines. You are gonna always have misinformed people--to some acceleration is the definitive benchmark of a sports car to the informed world the complete synthesis of a cars mechanicals is ultimate. The RX8 is far more confidence inspiring than my FD was--even though the FD pulled better skidpad numbers--I never felt like it 'had my back' so to speak in a turn.