rx8 over the fd
01-08-2007, 08:53 AM
#126
Laid back in the pocket
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the comparo...as much as I love the FD ( imo best looking car available under $90K, never had the pleasure of driving one though)...
I can fit an entire 5 piece drum kit in my 8, including 22" bass drum, three toms, snare, cymbal bag, and all hardware incl. cymbal stands!!! Good luck getting even the bass drum in any other sports car on the market.
I can fit an entire 5 piece drum kit in my 8, including 22" bass drum, three toms, snare, cymbal bag, and all hardware incl. cymbal stands!!! Good luck getting even the bass drum in any other sports car on the market.
01-09-2007, 12:26 PM
#127
I can add my 2 cents. I breifly owned a '94 FD Touring pack and it was a nice car, but had too many issues to be fun. Everytime I had to go someplace I would close my eyes and clench my teeth praying my 7 would start. Not to mention I rarely got boost from the second turbo above 4500 rpm (due to a vacuum issue) and my never-rebuilt 13B was approaching 87,xxx miles so I was going to need the apex seals replaced pretty soon. The 8 is lightyears ahead in reliabitly, and a lot more comfortable (I don't have kidney bruises anymore!) and so on.
And yes, I know FD's can be made to be reliable, I had a buddy with a '93 with a single turbo conversion and a few other tweaks and it was fine, but those all take thousands of dollars just to get it to that point.
Oh, and Mitsubishi doesn't design a better intake or Nissan a better ECU because of Emissions regulations by the EPA and because of fuel mileage requirements. Did you know the EPA regulates intake noise? It also regulates exhaust noise, engine noise, gear noise, and interior noise, not just exhaust gas emissions. So if Mitsu was to make a better intake, it still wouldn't be as good as the non-street legal versions. The only way AEM and other companies get away with it is when you get your car inspected, they don't test your intake noise, or gear noise, or other stuff that is tested on a brand new car going through production.
But the other poster who said the stuff about the "trickle down" effect, as in if you get a better intake it's useless without a better exhaust, so then a reprogrammed ECU, and then you need a better clutch to support the power, then better brakes because you're going faster, etc.......is completely right. SO then we would have a 500+bhp EVO for over $60,000. The Evo or the Z or whatever is tuned within EPA regs and to get the best fuel mileage.
Dave
And yes, I know FD's can be made to be reliable, I had a buddy with a '93 with a single turbo conversion and a few other tweaks and it was fine, but those all take thousands of dollars just to get it to that point.
Oh, and Mitsubishi doesn't design a better intake or Nissan a better ECU because of Emissions regulations by the EPA and because of fuel mileage requirements. Did you know the EPA regulates intake noise? It also regulates exhaust noise, engine noise, gear noise, and interior noise, not just exhaust gas emissions. So if Mitsu was to make a better intake, it still wouldn't be as good as the non-street legal versions. The only way AEM and other companies get away with it is when you get your car inspected, they don't test your intake noise, or gear noise, or other stuff that is tested on a brand new car going through production.
But the other poster who said the stuff about the "trickle down" effect, as in if you get a better intake it's useless without a better exhaust, so then a reprogrammed ECU, and then you need a better clutch to support the power, then better brakes because you're going faster, etc.......is completely right. SO then we would have a 500+bhp EVO for over $60,000. The Evo or the Z or whatever is tuned within EPA regs and to get the best fuel mileage.
Dave
01-09-2007, 03:04 PM
#128
Upsilon Sigma Mu Chi
Originally Posted by Rhythmic
Back to the comparo...as much as I love the FD ( imo best looking car available under $90K, never had the pleasure of driving one though)...
I can fit an entire 5 piece drum kit in my 8, including 22" bass drum, three toms, snare, cymbal bag, and all hardware incl. cymbal stands!!! Good luck getting even the bass drum in any other sports car on the market.
I can fit an entire 5 piece drum kit in my 8, including 22" bass drum, three toms, snare, cymbal bag, and all hardware incl. cymbal stands!!! Good luck getting even the bass drum in any other sports car on the market.
Sorry about regressing...
01-09-2007, 05:26 PM
#129
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chickenwafer
I can add my 2 cents. I breifly owned a '94 FD Touring pack and it was a nice car, but had too many issues to be fun. Everytime I had to go someplace I would close my eyes and clench my teeth praying my 7 would start. Not to mention I rarely got boost from the second turbo above 4500 rpm (due to a vacuum issue) and my never-rebuilt 13B was approaching 87,xxx miles so I was going to need the apex seals replaced pretty soon. The 8 is lightyears ahead in reliabitly, and a lot more comfortable (I don't have kidney bruises anymore!) and so on.
And yes, I know FD's can be made to be reliable, I had a buddy with a '93 with a single turbo conversion and a few other tweaks and it was fine, but those all take thousands of dollars just to get it to that point.
Oh, and Mitsubishi doesn't design a better intake or Nissan a better ECU because of Emissions regulations by the EPA and because of fuel mileage requirements. Did you know the EPA regulates intake noise? It also regulates exhaust noise, engine noise, gear noise, and interior noise, not just exhaust gas emissions. So if Mitsu was to make a better intake, it still wouldn't be as good as the non-street legal versions. The only way AEM and other companies get away with it is when you get your car inspected, they don't test your intake noise, or gear noise, or other stuff that is tested on a brand new car going through production.
But the other poster who said the stuff about the "trickle down" effect, as in if you get a better intake it's useless without a better exhaust, so then a reprogrammed ECU, and then you need a better clutch to support the power, then better brakes because you're going faster, etc.......is completely right. SO then we would have a 500+bhp EVO for over $60,000. The Evo or the Z or whatever is tuned within EPA regs and to get the best fuel mileage.
Dave
And yes, I know FD's can be made to be reliable, I had a buddy with a '93 with a single turbo conversion and a few other tweaks and it was fine, but those all take thousands of dollars just to get it to that point.
Oh, and Mitsubishi doesn't design a better intake or Nissan a better ECU because of Emissions regulations by the EPA and because of fuel mileage requirements. Did you know the EPA regulates intake noise? It also regulates exhaust noise, engine noise, gear noise, and interior noise, not just exhaust gas emissions. So if Mitsu was to make a better intake, it still wouldn't be as good as the non-street legal versions. The only way AEM and other companies get away with it is when you get your car inspected, they don't test your intake noise, or gear noise, or other stuff that is tested on a brand new car going through production.
But the other poster who said the stuff about the "trickle down" effect, as in if you get a better intake it's useless without a better exhaust, so then a reprogrammed ECU, and then you need a better clutch to support the power, then better brakes because you're going faster, etc.......is completely right. SO then we would have a 500+bhp EVO for over $60,000. The Evo or the Z or whatever is tuned within EPA regs and to get the best fuel mileage.
Dave
01-09-2007, 06:29 PM
#130
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Woodstock Ontario
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rootski
. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "highly moddable" seems to be another word for "poorly designed."
01-10-2007, 09:57 AM
#131
Laid back in the pocket
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AirlockRX
Funny you mention the 5pc Kit /w 22" Bass Drum, I got a 5pc DW kit for my daughter and I need to take it to PA. Is that without cases?
Sorry about regressing...
Sorry about regressing...
Make sure you lay down some towels or something as to not damage the leather or door panels, especially the bass drum up front. I learned that the hard way one night after a gig I was quick (and drunk) about getting the bass drum in there and I slightly damaged the door panel with some of the hardware on the bass drum.
Anyway, it sure is nice to have a car with the performance characteristics of the 8 and still drive it to gigs!
01-10-2007, 02:35 PM
#132
DSC Disabling Officer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skiptomylue
ill correcet you.... any LSx engine is "Highly moddable" and none of them are "poorly designed"
Judging by the context it was used in, it seems to mean " make falses absolutist statements ".
01-10-2007, 02:49 PM
#133
Registered
The LSx engines are nice but they REALLY benefit from better intakes and exhausts. We really saw this on my friend's Z28 and his brother's Z06. The new 600 hp Viper has stainless steel headers and everything seems to be pretty well optimized so they are unlikely to get anymore power from just bolt ons. Of course they've also got 600hp but the point is that the better the factory does with the total package and not just the engine itself, the less simple mods such as intakes and exhausts will do to it.
01-10-2007, 04:36 PM
#134
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ultimately it's pointless to make these comparisons. Every single car show I go to I have the smallest engine producing the most horsepower per displacement. And yes, saying a twin rotary 1.3 is really a 3 liter v6 is a bunch of BS. So when the factory z produces about 450hp stock then we can call it better.
If you want to tinker get an FD, if you want to drive get an 8.
If you want to tinker get an FD, if you want to drive get an 8.
01-10-2007, 04:43 PM
#135
Upsilon Sigma Mu Chi
Originally Posted by Rhythmic
I had cases for my snare and toms, and cymbals, but not the bass drum. I put the bass drum in the front passenger seat, other drums + cymbal bag in the back seats, and all hardware in the trunk w/ cymbal stands going through the pass through (and I've got 2 amps and a sub in the trunk too!!)
Make sure you lay down some towels or something as to not damage the leather or door panels, especially the bass drum up front. I learned that the hard way one night after a gig I was quick (and drunk) about getting the bass drum in there and I slightly damaged the door panel with some of the hardware on the bass drum.
Anyway, it sure is nice to have a car with the performance characteristics of the 8 and still drive it to gigs!
Make sure you lay down some towels or something as to not damage the leather or door panels, especially the bass drum up front. I learned that the hard way one night after a gig I was quick (and drunk) about getting the bass drum in there and I slightly damaged the door panel with some of the hardware on the bass drum.
Anyway, it sure is nice to have a car with the performance characteristics of the 8 and still drive it to gigs!
I'm probably stripping off all the spurs & legs too...
Again, apologies for digressing.
01-10-2007, 04:49 PM
#136
Originally Posted by Umbra
Ultimately it's pointless to make these comparisons. Every single car show I go to I have the smallest engine producing the most horsepower per displacement. And yes, saying a twin rotary 1.3 is really a 3 liter v6 is a bunch of BS. So when the factory z produces about 450hp stock then we can call it better.
.
.
I think the displacement is irrelevant . One should look at
Power to weight ratio
Fuel consumption
Power across the rev range
On this basis our engine is comparable with most 3L N/A or 2L turbos .
01-10-2007, 09:28 PM
#137
Rotary Superstar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brettus
Are you saying that our engine should be compared to a 1.3L N/A piston engine ?
I think the displacement is irrelevant . One should look at
Power to weight ratio
Fuel consumption
Power across the rev range
On this basis our engine is comparable with most 3L N/A or 2L turbos .
I think the displacement is irrelevant . One should look at
Power to weight ratio
Fuel consumption
Power across the rev range
On this basis our engine is comparable with most 3L N/A or 2L turbos .
Power to weight ratio. On this basis, our RX8 is comparable with most economy cars.
Fuel consumption. On this basis, our RX8 is comparable with most 350+HP V8's, or trucks/SUV's.
Power across the rev range. On this basis, our engine is comparable to Honda's. I can't think of any other engine that doesn't make any power until near redline.
01-11-2007, 12:29 AM
#138
Originally Posted by AdRoCK3217
Power to weight ratio. On this basis, our RX8 is comparable with most economy cars.
Fuel consumption. On this basis, our RX8 is comparable with most 350+HP V8's, or trucks/SUV's.
Power across the rev range. On this basis, our engine is comparable to Honda's. I can't think of any other engine that doesn't make any power until near redline.
Fuel consumption. On this basis, our RX8 is comparable with most 350+HP V8's, or trucks/SUV's.
Power across the rev range. On this basis, our engine is comparable to Honda's. I can't think of any other engine that doesn't make any power until near redline.
I suppose the closest engine to compare in most respects would be the S2000 engine
Similar weight
Similar power
Better fuel economy
01-11-2007, 06:14 AM
#139
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Santiago, Dominican Republic
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brettus
Are you saying that our engine should be compared to a 1.3L N/A piston engine ?
I think the displacement is irrelevant . One should look at
Power to weight ratio
Fuel consumption
Power across the rev range
On this basis our engine is comparable with most 3L N/A or 2L turbos .
I think the displacement is irrelevant . One should look at
Power to weight ratio
Fuel consumption
Power across the rev range
On this basis our engine is comparable with most 3L N/A or 2L turbos .
01-11-2007, 02:50 PM
#140
Rotary Superstar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how 2.0L turbo'd can be classed the same as our engine in any respects. They kill our gas mileage (REAL gas mileage -- not EPA sticker), they made tons more power to weight, and they make power from 1/3 of the RPM to redline! Completely different from our engines...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
