rx-8 vs. rx-7
#78
Ike, as someone who appreciates performance, I am surprised you would bash the VTX. The VTX can waste a Harley in the performance catagory (except the V-Rod which most Harley loyalists disregard as a "real" Harley). Personally, I wouldn't buy either though......I'm a Victory guy. In fact, I am going to be getting a Victory Vegas Jackpot in two months.
#79
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milwaukee Wi.
Posts: 997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ride mostly with Harleys. A cruiser is a cruiser regardless of brand. I just bought what fits me best. Harley's are too small for me. Big is better. I'm buying a Hayabusa next. 200mph sport machine. All cars are slow to me. You guys don't know the meaning of the word FAST.
#81
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bascho
Ike, as someone who appreciates performance, I am surprised you would bash the VTX. The VTX can waste a Harley in the performance catagory (except the V-Rod which most Harley loyalists disregard as a "real" Harley). Personally, I wouldn't buy either though......I'm a Victory guy. In fact, I am going to be getting a Victory Vegas Jackpot in two months.
#82
Originally Posted by Roaddemon
I ride mostly with Harleys. A cruiser is a cruiser regardless of brand. I just bought what fits me best. Harley's are too small for me. Big is better. I'm buying a Hayabusa next. 200mph sport machine. All cars are slow to me. You guys don't know the meaning of the word FAST.
And, I have driven a fair share of sport bikes, and race cars. I think I know what fast is.
For those that don't know, the Germans have succesfully characterized fast. It looks like this.
#83
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roaddemon
I ride mostly with Harleys. A cruiser is a cruiser regardless of brand. I just bought what fits me best. Harley's are too small for me. Big is better. I'm buying a Hayabusa next. 200mph sport machine. All cars are slow to me. You guys don't know the meaning of the word FAST.
#85
Turbos blow!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: my engine bay
Posts: 1,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roaddemon
Ahhh, but is it a dailey driver?
#87
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Milwaukee Wi.
Posts: 997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueEyes
Why would you buy a Hayabusa? (Serious answer please)
And, I have driven a fair share of sport bikes, and race cars. I think I know what fast is.
And, I have driven a fair share of sport bikes, and race cars. I think I know what fast is.
The hayabusa is low,comfortable, lightweight high power/weight machine and I like the way it looks. It's serious sport cruising.
#91
Originally Posted by Ike
Forester XT
Legacy GT wagon and sedan
WRX wagon and sedan
STI
Evo
Eclipse
G35c
G35 Sedan
M45
FX45
350Z
Altima
Maxima
TL
RL
RSX Type S
Accord V6
Accord V6 hybrid
Civic SI
S2000
Rav4
IS350
GS430
GTI
Jetta GLI
R32
A3
A4
A6
A8
G6 GTP
Grand Prix GXP
GTO
Magnum RT
Charger RT
300C
Crossfire
All the SRT-8 vehicles
SRT-4
Need me to go on, because there are still car manufacturers I haven't covered yet, and I haven't even gotten to older cars yet... All of those cars can trap 94 mph or above and will either beat or be close with the RX-8.
Legacy GT wagon and sedan
WRX wagon and sedan
STI
Evo
Eclipse
G35c
G35 Sedan
M45
FX45
350Z
Altima
Maxima
TL
RL
RSX Type S
Accord V6
Accord V6 hybrid
Civic SI
S2000
Rav4
IS350
GS430
GTI
Jetta GLI
R32
A3
A4
A6
A8
G6 GTP
Grand Prix GXP
GTO
Magnum RT
Charger RT
300C
Crossfire
All the SRT-8 vehicles
SRT-4
Need me to go on, because there are still car manufacturers I haven't covered yet, and I haven't even gotten to older cars yet... All of those cars can trap 94 mph or above and will either beat or be close with the RX-8.
But I'll bet maybe 8 or 9 out of the 36 can truly "hang" with the RX-8 in the 0-60 or 1/4 mile, and of those, 6 or 7 would also top the 350Z.
Why would you effectuate such insincere and time-consuming posts?
#92
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RotoRocket
I am not about to research which ones on your list there can hang with the RX-8 in straight line (let alone track performance).
But I'll bet maybe 8 or 9 out of the 36 can truly "hang" with the RX-8 in the 0-60 or 1/4 mile, and of those, 6 or 7 would also top the 350Z.
Why would you effectuate such insincere and time-consuming posts?
But I'll bet maybe 8 or 9 out of the 36 can truly "hang" with the RX-8 in the 0-60 or 1/4 mile, and of those, 6 or 7 would also top the 350Z.
Why would you effectuate such insincere and time-consuming posts?
#93
Originally Posted by Ike
It took me 5 minutes to make that list... There are 8 or 9 Chryslers alone that will not just hang with but beat the 8, 4 subarus can do the same, 6 if you include the wagons. We're already over 10 with just 2 car manufacturers...
I'll anxiously await for you to vindicate your earlier response.
#94
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RotoRocket
Since you posted that original list, please do specifically identify which ones on it best the RX-8 in either 0-60, 1/4 mile, or skidpad times.
I'll anxiously await for you to vindicate your earlier response.
I'll anxiously await for you to vindicate your earlier response.
#96
Require IQ test to vote!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, getting the thread back on topic, as someone who has owned an 1993 CYM FD R1, a 2004, and a 2005 RX-8 GT 6SP, the answer to the question of which is better (and to most of the Ike v. world arguement) is very, very simple:
It depends.
The RX-8 is a much NICER car to be in than the RX-7. The RX-7 was both built for lightness and rushed to market to beat the Supra TT. This resulted in a spartan (hell, I'll say it: cheap) interior. But it was perfectly functional for its purpose.
The RX-7 was a sports car. The RX-8 is a GT. (And the Evo is an econobox with boost.)
The RX-8 handles, surprisingly, about as well as the RX-7 did stock. But the RX-7 was easily converted to something the RX-8 (and probably the Evo) will never achieve in real-world or on-track performance.
How fast? I never had problems with modified Vipers, 911 Turbos, Vettes of any kind, or M3s at tracks like Sebring and Road Atlanta. The Vipers could pull harder out of a corner, but were trucks everywhere else on the track.
Numbers? G-Tech had me 0-60 in 3.2, 60-0 in 80 ft, and 1.28 lateral G. This was in my daily driver, with the stock sequential turbos, full A/C, all interior, hell, even a car-phone kit. See the mods at http://www.geocites.com/jwitzer.
The RX-8 0-60 is listed as 5.9. The RX-7 was 5.3 (but most ran 5.1). The Evo is 4.9.
The quality of the power in the rotary is, of course, in another league alltogether. Smooth as a V12 and willing to rev past 12,000 with little modification. The RX-8 is woefully lacking in power and no amount of defence can fix that. About 300 to 320 would make this a really nice all-arounder, but it is still the best day-to-day, high quality, fun, sporty (not sports) car on the market.
With a penchant for sportive driving, and a 2 year old daughter, I cross-shopped the M3, the G35 Coupe, the Mustang GT, and the GTO. The M3 did not have enough rear legroom, the G35 seats were far too flat and the rear suspension design is pathetic, the Mustang and GTO are far too crude and low quality to be considered.
Why no Evo or STI? Again, quality. I was not interested in econoboxes with spastic engines. But I have no doubt that they would smoke the RX-8 straight line or many curvy roads... until they broke.
Most of the cars on Ike's list, while they may be quicker in some straight-line test than the RX-8 (many of which I call into question), none of them have the whole package, especially at this price.
But the RX-8 needs more power to be taken seriously. A small supercharger should have been an option. Mazda has done just about everything that could be done with a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary. But more is needed. A turbo would not fit the character of the car.
There are many faster cars, but none were better for me.
It depends.
The RX-8 is a much NICER car to be in than the RX-7. The RX-7 was both built for lightness and rushed to market to beat the Supra TT. This resulted in a spartan (hell, I'll say it: cheap) interior. But it was perfectly functional for its purpose.
The RX-7 was a sports car. The RX-8 is a GT. (And the Evo is an econobox with boost.)
The RX-8 handles, surprisingly, about as well as the RX-7 did stock. But the RX-7 was easily converted to something the RX-8 (and probably the Evo) will never achieve in real-world or on-track performance.
How fast? I never had problems with modified Vipers, 911 Turbos, Vettes of any kind, or M3s at tracks like Sebring and Road Atlanta. The Vipers could pull harder out of a corner, but were trucks everywhere else on the track.
Numbers? G-Tech had me 0-60 in 3.2, 60-0 in 80 ft, and 1.28 lateral G. This was in my daily driver, with the stock sequential turbos, full A/C, all interior, hell, even a car-phone kit. See the mods at http://www.geocites.com/jwitzer.
The RX-8 0-60 is listed as 5.9. The RX-7 was 5.3 (but most ran 5.1). The Evo is 4.9.
The quality of the power in the rotary is, of course, in another league alltogether. Smooth as a V12 and willing to rev past 12,000 with little modification. The RX-8 is woefully lacking in power and no amount of defence can fix that. About 300 to 320 would make this a really nice all-arounder, but it is still the best day-to-day, high quality, fun, sporty (not sports) car on the market.
With a penchant for sportive driving, and a 2 year old daughter, I cross-shopped the M3, the G35 Coupe, the Mustang GT, and the GTO. The M3 did not have enough rear legroom, the G35 seats were far too flat and the rear suspension design is pathetic, the Mustang and GTO are far too crude and low quality to be considered.
Why no Evo or STI? Again, quality. I was not interested in econoboxes with spastic engines. But I have no doubt that they would smoke the RX-8 straight line or many curvy roads... until they broke.
Most of the cars on Ike's list, while they may be quicker in some straight-line test than the RX-8 (many of which I call into question), none of them have the whole package, especially at this price.
But the RX-8 needs more power to be taken seriously. A small supercharger should have been an option. Mazda has done just about everything that could be done with a naturally aspirated 1.3 rotary. But more is needed. A turbo would not fit the character of the car.
There are many faster cars, but none were better for me.
#98
i pwn therefore i am
Originally Posted by jwitzer
G-Tech had me 0-60 in 3.2
Although I don't believe in subjecting my car to the rigors of drag racing, a similarly configured RX-7 has run 11.425 at 120.350 and 0-60 in 4.2.
#100
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ike
I'd give you more reasons but I've answered this question many many times and quite frankly I don't need to justify my being here to anyone.