RX8-79

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ine.promo.2g.*

jsh1120

Curb weight for the RX-8 is listed at 3810 lbs. I assume they had two NFL offensive linemen in the back seats.

One comment caught my attention. "Like the small-displacement British sports cars of old, the RX-8 moves along just fine, as long as you let the motor wind up and scream."

That says it all.

Deslock

Not a bad review... though (1) their scoring system is questionable, (2) they optioned the RX8 to $31k and cited the $25k Mustang as a better bargain while the RX8 6MT can be had for $24k, and (3) there are some typos (their RX8 weighed 3810!).

That said, Ford deserves a lot of credit for the Mustang redesign. If I didn't need 4 doors, I would've considered one.

don olliejandro

Awesome review..I've became a fan of the new mustang and wanted to know how it stood up against the rx-8...still debating which to get...if I could have it my way, I'd like the power of the mustang in the rx-8..hopefully they'll have a new turbo rx-8 soon.

czr

iTrader: (3)

The 8 can't win them all but not too sure about the "Final Rankings and Scoring Explanation" or the 7 second 0-60 second time. From their ratings, the Mustang blew out the 8 and the Z. It should be a lot closer than what it turned out to be.

TODreamer

it doesnt surprise me that they would pick the stang when for less money you can hav more car.... but 3800lb RX8? something is wrong with their facts.

its also hard to measure the stangs durability right now taking its "history" into account... be that as it may the stang is still nice... However, personally I'd rather have an 8

mysql101

That was a pretty horrible review. They just put up random thoughts and called it a review, while saying they were going to put them on a track to really test them. A lot of words, but very little substance.

c2k4-8

The video says the RX8 was 0-60mph in 7 seconds... what? I know I've hit it quicker than that!

TALAN7

They probalbly didn't wind the RX8 way up before launching, but regardless, the RX8 is starting to become more and more represented as a weakling, now even amongst credible reviewers. Edmonds even said it didn't have enough grunt for them to seriously consider it for the win. As far as handling goes, it probably handles the best which gives it comparable track times but straight line performance will always win out over handling. If the RX8 had 20-30 more hp it probably would have won. It doesn't need 300 like the stang, just about 260 for the base rx8. The Mazdaspeed needs to have over 300. This just goes to show you that Mazda needs to get the base 8 performing better. The Mustang GT is already cheaper and faster. Who's gonna pay much more for a Mazdaspeed 8 that can only keep up with the Mustang GT. The mazdspeed should have the cobra in it's sights.

Pkskull77

NO RX-8 w/out a huge Turbo is going to smoke a Mustang in the straits. The Mustang achieves performance via the traditional American method of massive displacement, a method that is still superior to the Asian theory on performance. The RX-8 uses a very small rotary engine, coupled with a great transmission. Unfortunately, the Mazda approach to performance is far more expensive than Fords’, leaving very little room for a faster base model. If the Mazda drastically increased the 8’s power, it would come via FI, and we all know this would be attached to the MS8.

The problem I have with any comparison between the 8 and a Muscle car is the writer’s inability to see the difference between innovation and the same old thing. Muscle Cars achieve performance the same way they did 40 years ago, by placing a disproportionately large engine in a car. Because the formula is so simple it’s very cheap. The result is a car that snaps your neck off the line, but remains relatively unremarkable in the other aspects of driving. As such, the Mustang is not drastically different than it’s predecessors. It uses a large engine, to achieve performance. They changed the looks by going retro, but that’s about it! Let me preference this by saying that I understand that there are some innovations in the car, but nothing drastic.

If you dropped a six-cylinder engine in the new Mustang, I guarantee that no one would scream about the Mustangs performance. No one would call the Stangs handling crisp, or rave about its wonderful drivability. Lets face it, a vote for the Mustang, is a vote for displacement.

Not every car has to be innovative, but with all the praise and attention that the Mustang receives, you would think people would be more critical of Ford’s inability to do something different. Just once I would like to see Ford step to the plate with a fast 6 cyl offering. I would love to hear the critics woo over how great the six cylinder Mustang was. Not going to happen any time soon, because a big engine is cheap, and easy.

All that aside I’m not trying to put the Mustang down, I like it’s looks, love it’s performance, and acknowledge it accomplishes what it sets out to do. Heck, if I were into Muscle Cars, this would be the one I would own. My issue stems from comparisons made between two cars that could not be more dissimilar. If your going to set out and compare the RX-8 and the Mustang do so knowing that the cars have a huge difference in displacement. Write an article that respects the variety that makes a sports car, a sports car. Instead of rewarding the RX-8 for handling, and the Mustang for acceleration take the time to consider the other things. Compare the weakness instead of the strengths. Before I read the article I could have told you who was going to win, because American Magazine’s are horsepower crazy. All things being equal in the horsepower department, the RX-8 would be a faster car, it is that simple! If I were to drop a big old V8 in my 8, I would embarrass the Pony.

TALAN7

I agree. It is sort of comparing apples to oranges. Still, regardless I still think that the reviewers more and more are seeing the 8 as a little underpowered. Their thinking, if you're going to make a sports car, particularly one that looks as sporty as the RX8, you need to have really good performance with it. As far as American muscle is concerned, take a look at the hemis, vettes, stangs', GTOs', etc. We Americans love big engines and big power, particulary torque, something the RX8 doesn't have. We couldn't make something as innovativee as the RX8 engine cause all we think about is size. If we did make a rotary it'd be 4 liters, imagine that. This new mustang hopefully will wake Mazda up so they become competitive. Unfortunately, in the horsepower wars that are taking place the rotary engine is not the tech to fall behind. But I like to be different and like I said, the RX8 needs only 20 or so more hp. It doesn't have to be faster, just comparable.
On a side note. The new Mustang is neither innovative nor attractive unlike the RX8, which everyone I talk to regarding how much I payed for it responds "THAT'S ALL, I'D THINK THIS THING WOULD SELL FOR 40 THOUSAND."

Shoafb

Actually that added weight would screw the handling all up. They are just 2 different cars, both can be appreciated. Getting the mustang to handle like the 8 and or getting the 8 to have the straight line power would cost much more $$$ or you could just by a c-6 vette.

Pkskull77

I agree on the horsepower issue as well, but lets face it, you are going to have to go aftermarket to get an affordable solution at this point. If Mazda could cheaply, and reliably add horsepower they would have done it by now. Chances are that they had tested and decided that more horses from the Rensis was too risky from a financial standpoint. Over the next couple of model years you will see a gain of 10-15, but I would not imagine much more without a MS logo being attached. Unfortunately, adding MS tag means mucho bucks.

As for the American’s who love Horsepower/Torque, I’ve got some bad news. If you haven’t noticed, a majority of the classic American Muscle cars have gone the way of the Macarena. With the exception of the Mustang, I can’t think of one affordable Muscle car that has been around since the beginning. The Camero, Firebird, Grand National etc…, are all gone. Currently the only offerings are the Mustang and the GTO (The GTO being reintroduced).

Ironically enough the Mustang was never really a Muscle Car; it was initially marketed as a cheap, and economical “sporty looking car.” Several years after it’s introduction there were some models that started getting muscular, but if you were to query a muscle car fanatic they would be unlikely to consider the Pony Muscle. It wasn’t until recently that the Mustang achieved “Muscle Car” status, which had more to do with elimination of competitors, than with superiority.

In any case our car is what it is, and I don’t believe that many people interested in the 8 have considered the Mustang, and visa-versa. Therefore, every magazine in the world cold say the Mustang was better, and I don’t believe 1 single 8 owner would be lost. The two cars are just so different.

Pkskull77

I agree, but at that point handling would not be your objective. If you were to take that extreme a measure you would be going for speed.

Spin9k

The review including the sidebars strike me as examples of macho American car reviewers love-hate relationship with things. er... ah.. un-American.

They all praise the obvious engineering and handling of the 8, but get bogged down in their own cultural need for the biggest stick (V8 or V6 torque), carved from a brick styling (Mustang under bite, 350Z slab) and their apparent long unrequited desire for retro 60's musclecars of old (not sports coups as the title suggests).

If they could escape that mind trap they might even enjoy owning the 8 LOL.

But it's not going to happen, so the car gets relegated to 2nd place as an 'alien styled' foreign car with sporty, yet not quite manly performance, and ultimately, unloved, abilities.

What a pity for those reading that just don't have a clue and only read the headlines anyway..... Only Road Test Editor John DiPietro git it right through even his rose colored glasses..."a perfect blend of nostalgic style and modern convenience in an affordable package that should appeal to high school hoodlums and middle-aged soccer moms alike. " Look for hundreds of thousands of them at malls near you.

mysql101

I had to laugh at my latest autoweek. They were discussing retro styling, the writer said he liked them, but only in limited edition. He wanted to know where Ford would go in a few years when the 2005 stang needed a face lift. How about in 10 years? Will they upgrade it to a foxbody style? lol.

jsh1120

Here you are.

jsh1120

And 5 years later, retro styling at its most extreme.

shelleys_man_06

The real next Mustang:



As for this comparo, it was more abstract than technical, since the writer referred to each car as a rock song, or something like that. Are they giving the new Mustang too much credit? IMO, not really. The Mustang is a damn good bargain deal for what it's worth. I've had the opportunity to experience one a few months ago, and I found it to be quite impressive. I believe the only reason Edmunds gave the Mustang the edge is because it's new. The RX-8 went through little change from the 2004 to 2005 MY, mechanically. Would the RX-8 been in better position to take first place away from the Ford had its power been increased, or just been mechanically improved all together?

red_rx8_red_int

LOL, I hate retro styling. I think the 05 stangs are fugly.

rx8wannahave

Well the review was very short and it sounded like FORD paid them off, not that I disagree with their choice...the new Mustang is the better bang for the buck in outright speed (HP per $$) but seeing all the cars together just made me GLAD I went with the RX8.

The new mustang looks better as you get use to it, but it still does not look as sexy as the RX8.

The 350Z I have respect for but the butt is so ugly, I still like Nissan. What is up with their 7sec 0-60 time...they suck driving the 8 it appears.

Well, finally (eventhough I really don't like this review...I expected more from edmunds.com) our 8 lost a battle. One thing that ticks me off a bit is that Mazda did not give the 8 more power. Like someone, and I have said before too, the 8 should have had about 265HP or more...but we shall see what is next for the 8.

THANKS FOR SHARING!!!

TODreamer

I agree.. I find that a little fishy... my 150hp, 4 banger Accord probably does 7 seconds

shelleys_man_06

Do you think Ford just ran out of ideas when it came to styling the next Mustang?

I believe there is nothing wrong with what they did. However, it doesn't look nearly as good as the original.

mysql101

I agree - I saw an original today, just as the new '05 drove by. The new one appears very bland in comparison. The orange concept photo of the new stang really looked aggressive. I think the production model lacks that aggressive look.

6speed8

From a pure acceleration test it is/was no surprise the Mustang took top honors. I have not driven one so I can't say how the handling/steering is. What I do know is it is a large car (187 inches, 188 for the GT) compared to the original at 181 inches. It is also quite wide at 73 inches. The original Mustang weighed 2500 lbs, the 2005 is almost 1000 lbs heavier. I cant imagine it feeling like a sports car with those dimensions and weight. Chevy reduced the size and weight of the 05 vette (dimensionally very close to the RX-8) at 174 inches, 3000 lbs.

For me the proportions are all wrong for the 05 stang, too much rear overhang and I am not fond of the headlights and tail lights. It appears all the magazines are in love the 2005 Stang, just as in 2004 they were with the RX-8. Next year it will be another car.