Here. You won't believe the verdict.

 

7s 0-60?!

 

damn, i just stopped the video when they said 7 seconds for 0-60. the staff at Edmunds obviously doesn't know how to drive.

 

Those 0-60 numbers hurt Mazdas rep. Mazda really needs to add more power to the base RX8. They should've never made such a small engine in the first place. A 1.5 liter would've made about 270 hp maybe and would not have been noticeably heavier.

 

eh, as long as the Z didn't win, I'll consider this a victory for us.

 

That's true but it'd use even more fuel.

 

Um, it seemed to say...
1. Mustang (not even close)
2. Z
3. RX-8

It's kind of funny though, the review made it sound like the Mustang cornered better than the Z by quite a bit as well as being faster in the 0-60.

 

After watching I am assuming the drivers at edmunds are not sure how to drive and launch a tow torque high reving car. With all the other testers getting 5.9 - 6.2 it makes you wonder about the credibility of their entire test. I also guess when I think of a track car a mustang never crosses my mind.

 

No, Edmunds made it clear in a separate comparison piece that they like the 8 over the Z. The Z was just beating the crap out of them as a daily driver, which is why I'm surprised to hear them speak so highly of the Mustang's interior. I sat in one at the auto show, and at least the one I saw (not a GT) had ugly plastic all over the place and was just horrid. If comfort trumps speed in Edmunds' book, the 8 should have won hands down.

 

Look at all edmunds 0-60 times, they are all low. Edmunds doesn't drop launch the cars to test them like car and driver.

without a hard launch, the 8 is a 7sec car. Most people can get in the mid to low 6s with a good drag launch. to get that last .3 sec, be prepared to do a 7-8K clutch dump.

everyone relax.

 

That review was a bunch of bull. The mustang is NOT a refined car like the z and 8. In my opinion the interior sucks. What are people thinking? I wonder if Ford sponsored that comparison.

 

The problem is, most people review cars like Edmunds...they give pretty bland reviews/tests.

 

+1 on that.

I drove the RX-8 for about 4 months now and can say that the car is pretty slow on a relaxed launch. Infact it is slower than my previous RSX Type-S. Maybe a 7K drop will do the trick, but I am not going to try that out. I honestly doubt if 5.9 is even possible with that kind of abuse....

 

Didn't bother watching the video but I am assuming this is from over a year old review addressed in this thread:

https://www.rx8club.com/rx-8-media-news-11/edmunds-comparo-rx8-vs-z-vs-mustang-gt-49619/

Don't let it bother you too much.

 

Yes. This review is very old. I wonder why the video just surfaced now

 

Edmunds = American Fanboys. They mostly just want straight line performance, and obviously don't know how to launch the 8. 7 seconds my ***...

 

I don't put much stock in Edmunds reviews. They aren't a performance site and much of thier scoring is often subjective. For example, I remember reading a "performance comparison" with about 8 different coupes, including the mustang and camaro. The Camaro lost by a lot of points, but when you looked at the numbers it beat out every otherr car in almost every performance catagory. It was catagories like "Styling" which I believe was 20% and "Our pick" (where the edmunds people just subjectively say "I like that one) which was I think 10% that caused it to loose. Edmunds doesn't write performance comparison tests. I would prefer to call them "Subjective comparative opinions" more than anything else.

However, I agree with much of what was said here. I've personally had way faster 0-60 times and I've driven the Z and can't corner anywhere near like the 8 can. Edmunds probably doesn't drive agressively enough.

 

all there 0-60 times were slow. it's probably more realistic time than the 5.9 sec clutch bomb.

7.0 rx8
5.9 350z
5.7 mustang

Looks like they were doing low rev launches, which is what most people do everyday anyhow. Since edmunds isn't a performance magazine, these times seem reasonable. They're the type of times you would see accelerating away from the grocery store parking lot. I don't see why everyone is getting so *** hurt over it, babies.

 

I consider it a win, seeings how well a 1.3L hung with triple and quadruple its displacement powered counterparts. Mazda has always been the low power underdog that hangs and surprises soo many people. Mazda cars are not benchracer cars, they're true enthusiast sports cars.... look how well the Miata has done and how gutless it generally is. Granted another 50hp would rock, but if you just go into the turn faster you can rev out faster too hehe.

 

Assuming mister V8 isn't in front of you

 

eh just cut to the inside he'll be pushing at the exit hehe.

 

I agree. Our car has the ability to pull 5.9 to 60 and a 14.5 quarter under perfect conditions with violent shifting and abusive clutch work. Without all the abuse and a slick pavement, it's a mid 15 second car and barely dips into the upper 6s when it reaches 60. With an RX-8, you have to rape your clutch and tranny in order to the achieve numbers that a 350z can manage with a regular street start.

Uhh..why does that surprise anyone again?

 

Edmunds is like any other group of car reviewers. They all are just a group of people who have different preferences. It just happens that they like the Mustang more. One thing about Edmunds testing though. They don't do roll-out in their acceleration tests. Many magazines allow for roll-out which is essentially giving the car 12 inches of movement before you start the clocks. Their 0-60 mph tests starts at exactly 0 mph. However they tests all the cars the same way so you can compare their numbers with the other cars that they tested. I read about their testing methods in their review of the Cadillac STS-V.

Car and Driver drops the cutch at 8k rpm to get the RX-8 into the mid 14s on their quarter mile tests. Every once in while a magazine will write articles about their testing methods, tools, and techniques. I find it interesting to see how the reviewers come up with their numbers.