I'd have to agree with the OP. For those uninitiated, a RWD sports car can easily lose control in adverse or unpredictable conditions. Of course, it's largely dependent on the driver as to whether their car ends up wrapped around a light pole or keeps going down the road. But I like the thought of these junior Schumachers out there who think they know the limits of the car in all situations, effortlessly drifting around town. If you're driving it correctly, you shouldn't even need TSC or see that light come on.

For those of us who weren't driving around in the 70's, or hadn't even been born yet, this kind of technology is foolish to brush off. Sure, I could learn the limits of my car by losing control a couple of times, perhaps crashing it once or twice, but I'm interested in keeping it for a while, so intact it will remain. Anyways, this has been beaten to death before, and I guess the non-believers will just stay stubborn. By the way, some form of stability control will be mandatory on all cars in the near future, so enjoy your old-school "I control my car, my car doesn't control me" mentality while you still can!

Or perhaps those who reject these features are the wise ones. With all that electronic garbage in the way, you're just adding weight. Power to weight ratio FTW, right?

 

Unless you can lap faster with the stability control, let's not even compare having it or not having it. I am not saying it isn't a good feature, but aren't you masking the problem rather than dealing the problem.

 

If the 8s DSC was making corrections all the time I'd hate it. But the DSC we have is very very good at staying out of the way and letting you drive the car.

TCS seems to kick in pretty easily if you spin your wheels, but DSC will let you slide a bit before it kicks in. I like the way it works in the 8 and I normally leave it on, in some other cars I'd probably disable it all the time.

You don't really need DSC if you know what you're doing and conditions are good, but it's a nice feature to have for people who are used to driving FWD economy cars. It will let you learn from your mistakes and has a chance of saving you from them.

 

I don't question that having the tech is better than not having it. But I question whether the benefit is worth an extra 4k or so just to get that feature for a safe, experienced driver. People weren't really crashing their cars left and right before it existed.

 

DSC/TCS is a lot less than $4K. Looking up what you actually got in the '06 sport package, $1300 bought DSC/TCS, HID headlights, and fog lights.

DSC/TCS is kind of like seat belts or life insurance. Drive well and you'll never need it.

Ken

 

I never had a car with dsc/tcs including my 8. When I take the occasional turn in the 8 a little to sharp and fast I will feel the tires break loose. That feeling I have not had since the older rear wheel cars I learned to drive in. So not having any dsc/tcs experience is this what it made to prevent the car from doing? Because, I truly enjoy when rear wheels break loose and get little *** shack. People behind me might be thinking there goes a nut while a big ole cheesy grin is on my face. Now if you are driving in snow or ice and it helps that another story all together. But, I have never seen anyone or thing control a skidding car on ice.

 

But I thought we were talking about a new GT vs. Sport when you don't care about the other features. I still think even $1300 would be a lot if you didn't want HID or fog lights. You could sequence your DNA for that amount and be far more likely to improve and extend the quality of your life.

But I'm old like ******. I think a car is supposed to fishtail once in a while just to keep things interesting.

 

This move by Mazda is a step backwards IMHO, but I'll recognize they are in a difficult market situation regarding the RX. People not only were crashing cars left and right, but continue to do so. Here in the USA, we kill 40,000 people a year, year after year, with hardly any comment or discussion. It would be a lot more if we still drove the RWD "beasts" of the 60's and 70's I grew up with. They were lousy cars in almost every way. Specifically, RWD, open differentials, drum brakes, nose heavy layout, and bias ply tires turned even a little loss of traction into an 'adventure'. These tanks could barely move when it got a little slick. When 20k miles was a long-life tire, tires with even 10k on them were perfectly capable of getting stuck in 2" of snow in a level parking lot. Rain then was more like snow now. With a minute's reflection, I can think of high school crashes of 3 Mustangs and 2 VW's involving sideways or backwards slides into obstacles with 4 deaths and 1 permanent brain damage injury.

As for the "I'm a great driver" argument, aren't we all? (99% of the time).

Yeah, $4k sucks, but maybe you can consider the HID lights a safety feature too. As a practical matter, it may be impossible to actually buy a "stripper" 8 as many car makers make only a few of the lowest trim model each year to be able to advertise an unrealistically low MSRP.

 

I was in this exact decision making situation 3 weeks ago. I really wanted to get a new 2009 (to take advantage of the $4000 off incentive). The only manual transmission ones in 200 miles were either Sport models or Grand Touring. I really wanted the Touring trim, as it would add HID and DSC, but they were all automatics. In the end I couldn't justify the extra $4k+ for the GT/R3 trim. So far I have driven in rain a few times (quite common this time of year in FL) and have yet to had the car scare me. Do I wish I had DSC? ABSOLUTELY. This feature should be standard on a RWD sports car these days, as it will definitely save inexperienced drivers from getting into trouble, and will be required on all cars in 2012. I had it in my 2007 S2000 and I'm sure it helped me out a few times.

When driving this (or any RWD sports car without DSC) the main thing is to know where the cars limits are, and to drive appropriately in sub par conditions (rain, snow, etc). I guess it doesn't worry me too much, as I have had more RWD cars than FWD and only one of the RWD cars had DSC.

 

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2009/Sep/32398.html

This why I still believe sometimes a good offense is better than good defense. Meaning in my car and on my HD I will if I have the opportunity get the hell away from everyone as fast as I can and if that requires a red line I will do it. Because, I don't trust 99% of the **** drivers on the road and the faster I can get away from them the better in my opinion. If I am going to die in/on vehicle I want it because of my jackass mistake not yours.

 

Ah - I missed the part where you could only get it as part of a $4000 bundle. That kind of bundling sucks. On a smaller scale, my wife's Toyota is the only car we've had in years that does not have foldable rear view mirrors - because they were part of a package with all kinds of crap we did not need.

$1300 for the Sport package in '06 was a good deal for me - I wanted everything except the fog lights. And DSC/TCS helped sell my wife on the car...she believes in talismans like DSC, crash ratings, and exploding bladders in the dash.

I'm old, too, and I'm happy to have DSC as a backup in case I have a senior moment in the middle of a fast turn.

Ken

 

Ken, I'm not sure how old you are, but I know how old ****** is because I saw it in another thread and we're in our most virile decade that doesn't begin with a prime number. And feel like I should say something because I realize some very young divers read this board.

Drivers under the age of, say, 18 . . . er 22, better make that 24 -- you need stability control. It is not an option. You need it. Hell you need to wear helmets. Because you guys will crash your cars. A lot.

Crashes are not distributed evenly across the age spectrum. Adults who are smart enough to not drink a beer before driving rarely crash their cars. Not just because we are better drivers (we are) but because we drive at different times and make different decisions about relative risk under various road conditions.

It is hard to be rational when making a money vs. safety analysis. But we aren't really talking about chump change here. Life is a little risky. Would you recommend someone underfund their IRA to get stability control on their car? Which one of those is more risky?

 

Mid 60s. I've survived the old time cars - which were not as bad as HiFlite makes them out to be. IMHO, cars are safer these days mostly because of crashworthiness, not superior handling. While HiFlite mentioned kids in the old days going off the road backwards, these days we see too many kids going off the road frontwards.

That said, I think the link ****** put up tells a good tale. Inattention is a big problem. Besides drugs and alcohol, just not paying enough attention is a killer. That's one of the problems with young drivers. Leaving aside the ******** who think they're Burt Reynolds, inexperience means that even the resposnsible ones don't really know when to focus, and don't know safe margins. Stuff like DSC, TCS, ABS gives them a safety net that can make the difference.

A kid who's spending 30 grand on a sports car is already compromising their IRA, but has lots of time to make it up. Compromise it a few thousand more to get the modern safety aids. Just like my wife was happy to spring for a little more for me.

Ken

 

I'm not old enough to remember too much of the '70s, but I used to drive an '80 RX-7 and learned rear wheel drive handling from that.

Rear wheel drive cars have better handing and are easier to control if you know what you're doing, but front wheel drive cars are more idiot proof because they are prone to understeer and the average driver stomps the brakes when the **** hits the fan.

And since most cars since the '80s have had front wheel drive, that's what most people (especially the younger ones) are familiar with. Jumping into a RWD sports car after learning to drive on a FWD Camry can lead to problems, there's a learning curve there that can involve getting a bear hug from a tree.

The people who say that DSC is an important safety feature are right. The people who say that you can drive a RWD sports car without DSC and be fine as long as you know what you're doing are also right.

I like having DSC that stays out of the way unless you really push it and can be turned off with a button. So I think it's a good idea to get DSC with the 8. Even if you know how to drive a RWD sports car it's still nice to have in the rain (wet streets are the real enemy, not so much snow and ice) and it might save your car when you lose your senses and let someone else drive it.

 

Stability control isn't going to save the average young driver. Personally I think that people who give sports cars to their teenage kids are fools.

Giving a teenager a sports car with stability control is like giving an addict a crack pipe with a child-proof lighter.

 

Ken, how did you know I was Burt Reynolds?

 

But at least they won't burn their fingers.

For the record, when my daughter got her license, we gave her a hand-me down four door Honda Accord.

My first car was a sports car, which I bought with money I earned. 7 year old Alfa Romeo Spider, complete with bald tires.

Ken

 

Just that Quint Asper swagger in your posts.

Ken

 

If I lived in florida, I'd go with the sport too. But I've driven my old GT's with the DSC off in the snow. I have to say, all of you "old timers" with the attitude that you are old enough to know how to drive without DSC and don't need it, you are full of crap. It's true. Yeah, on a dry sunny day, only a fool would spin out in their RX-8. But what about a monsoon type downpour, where you're stuck on the highway hitting surprise puddles as you go around curves and up and down hills? Or what about those long snow storms, where they don't start plowing until have way through. So you have to get around down, again up and down hills, that haven't even been plowed and have 2-3 inches of snow on them. I consider myself a very good, very experienced driver. I really don't think I could make it through a 3 year lease without totaling my RX8 if it didn't have DSC. Remember this isn't a sunday driver, it's a daily driver. Its how I have to get to work, rain, snow, you name it. Even rain. I think that a lot of you live in areas where streets are level and straight, and really don't get how tough it can be in places like new england. This car doesn't give you much warning before it lets go. Part of having such a tight handling car, is that it's solid right up until the last second. There are tons of places around here where the roads get as slick as ice when they get wet. You'll hit the brakes to stop normally and your ABS will come on, they are so slick. And we have exceptionally bad road quality. Pot holes everywhere, even on the highways. Add it all together and what do you get? Me with no RX-8 right now because $450/mo is too much for me to lease a GT, and I'm not going to drive a sport with no DSC for 3 years in new england. I've had incidents while playing in the snow where I absolutely couldn't even get the car to move without the traction control. No matter how lightly i hit the gas, with blizzaks on, the tires would just spin.

It really pisses me off the way car makers bundle things though. Ignoring the mostly agreed upon fact that all 8's should have DSC, its nuts to have to go from the bottom of the line, to the top of the line, just to get one safety feature! Granted there IS NO middle of the line, but thats another things I don't get.

 

Funny I just ran my car at Pocono in a monsoon on slicks, my car is still in one piece without DSC. Just as a bonus, the car was the 3rd quickest in the rain that day out of 40+ cars.

I am all about safety. I have no problem with features that are non intrusive, but DSC can cut power when you don't want it to happen. I don't know how it is 100% safe.

 

Didn't you know DSC also keeps you safe from alien abductions you old timers don't know squat.