RX-8 listed in Motor Trend June 2008 Article 135i v EVO X
#27
Void Where Prohibited
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#28
and again, by that logic you can say the 8 would be great on roads that only have curves, no straights.
I thought the 8 was pretty confy cruising down the highway though.
Have you driven the new mustang?
they are 2 different cars, no need to rag on one or the other. Both do what they do.
I thought the 8 was pretty confy cruising down the highway though.
Have you driven the new mustang?
they are 2 different cars, no need to rag on one or the other. Both do what they do.
Pony cars used to be more a budget option and always more hot-rod than sports car. Great for your American-grafitti style challenges, but not so much for the true driving enthusiast looking for the whole package.
Today there's the Viper, and I guess you can count the solstice and it's Saturn counterpart. Haven't driven one, but on paper they've got the total package of plenty of power and great handling. Will cost you a pretty penny for a top-of-the line model though. The upcoming Solstice "coupe" looks interesting, but fundamentally flawed (can't even stow the top in the trunk). Even with the best parts, the American cars tend to lack the refinement of European and Japanese cars, but at least they're trying.
With all the cars I see coming out with 6 liter engines and 300-400 hp power claims, I think we're falling into that 70s "bigger is better" trap all over again. The bodies are getting bigger too, possibly to balance the cars with those houge engines. Even the Mustangs are too large for my taste and when I looked at the Camaro specs it'll be the same way. The RX-8 is the upper limit of size as far as I'm concerned.
I think it would take very little for the RX-8 (or whatever the next gen will be called) to best everyone out there. These cars keep getting heavier along with their power gains. The RX-8 should just need a modest boost in power and perhaps a little fat trimming to be a truly insurmountable sports car, in its class at least. Keep it light and nimble and whatever power you can add is gravy.
Last edited by solo8; 05-30-2008 at 12:47 PM.
#31
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In the hills between San Miguel and Parkfield - "up in the boonie lands", Central Coast of California, Wine Country
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when you get home from the ride, you still have enough hearing left to enjoy an expensive music system, and you aren't tired from dragging your car around with your arms....
I'll stick with the 8 - for lux, and decreased driver wear, as well as handling...
I'll stick with the 8 - for lux, and decreased driver wear, as well as handling...
#32
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about:
Same MPG. Additional 6gallons to the tank. Near bulletproof oil delivery & cooling so noon of the 03-08 gremlins occur?
6gallons totalling about 20.5? overall should net around 340 Miles to a trip, which i think is acceptable. Realistically I don't think we'll see a better mpg unless they start using a hybrid type technology similar to what F1 is using... electric for ontap torque, and charges during breaking & coasting...![Eyetwitch](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/eyetwitch.gif)
Same MPG. Additional 6gallons to the tank. Near bulletproof oil delivery & cooling so noon of the 03-08 gremlins occur?
6gallons totalling about 20.5? overall should net around 340 Miles to a trip, which i think is acceptable. Realistically I don't think we'll see a better mpg unless they start using a hybrid type technology similar to what F1 is using... electric for ontap torque, and charges during breaking & coasting...
![Eyetwitch](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/eyetwitch.gif)
Range is more important? I suspect miles per dollar is vastly more important.
Anyways Formula 1 and hybrid technology? Unless i'm highly mistaken.. that is only in "talks".
#34
250 bhp, with 210+ making it to the rear wheels, would be very nice in an 8.
I am not ragging on the Mustang, because I actually think it has a wonderful V8 that makes beautiful music (even if a different kind), and gobs of lusty torque, but it can just not be considered in the same league as the 8 in terms of handling.
And yes, the live rear axle on the Stang is there to cut costs. They had to keep the thing affordable for the masses, though Ford would have been wiser to eat the costs and go with something a little more sophisticated in back, IMHO.
I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns in upping horsepower especially in a car like the 8 (blasphemy), and an honest to goodness 250 would be beautiful zen.
I am not ragging on the Mustang, because I actually think it has a wonderful V8 that makes beautiful music (even if a different kind), and gobs of lusty torque, but it can just not be considered in the same league as the 8 in terms of handling.
And yes, the live rear axle on the Stang is there to cut costs. They had to keep the thing affordable for the masses, though Ford would have been wiser to eat the costs and go with something a little more sophisticated in back, IMHO.
I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns in upping horsepower especially in a car like the 8 (blasphemy), and an honest to goodness 250 would be beautiful zen.
#36
Void Where Prohibited
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mineola, TX
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
new mustang is bulky...
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/02/2...ppear-smaller/
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/c...-look-smaller/
Lol, at redesigning the 2010 Mustang to look smaller... I guess most designers try to achieve this with large cars anyways but why does the Mustang have to be so big? Wasn't the original fairly small? At lunch I'm often behind a current Mustang at a drive-through and I don't think the driver could even see my face over the rear of the car. The car totally dwarfs mine. I don't mind the look (I think the 2010 will look even modern) but where does all that extra acreage go to, it's certainly not the interior.
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/06/02/2...ppear-smaller/
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/c...-look-smaller/
Lol, at redesigning the 2010 Mustang to look smaller... I guess most designers try to achieve this with large cars anyways but why does the Mustang have to be so big? Wasn't the original fairly small? At lunch I'm often behind a current Mustang at a drive-through and I don't think the driver could even see my face over the rear of the car. The car totally dwarfs mine. I don't mind the look (I think the 2010 will look even modern) but where does all that extra acreage go to, it's certainly not the interior.
Last edited by JRichter; 06-06-2008 at 09:33 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ASH8
Series II Technical and Trouble shooting
7
10-30-2021 12:50 PM
vetteor8
New Member Forum
3
08-09-2015 05:56 PM