Ok,
Attached is a link of the Solo II National results:

http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/na.../Nationals.pdf

An EVO and an STI are in the thick of it in A Stock. Again, that's very impressiive considering these cars had just come out.

I think the RX8 is in B Stock or lower. Yes, driver ability and the initial classifications are big variables, but I think most people would see the EVO and STI as more competitive than the RX8.

 

a member on here whooped an STi and M3 with an RX8 so i think you are wrong. RX8 handles better.

 

Here we are talking about driver variability being the biggest factor in autocross and you use one example to say the RX8 handles better!

How about the fact that the RX8 perfomed worse than the G35 Coupe and Cobra on the Streets of Willow Road course? Perhaps, the RX8s mediocre slalom tests? What about the Best Motoring video last spring?

 

Being in a "higher" class doesn't exactly mean it is more competitive. Competitive is measured against cars in it's own class. Anyway, this is so beyond the point. No one is saying that the EVO is a bad autocross car.

By the way, check out the results of CS compared to AS.

 

I find it hard to believe someone with ANY kind of Auto-X skill couldn't outrun the RX8 in an Evo8. Hell if you could just find 2 straights it wouldn't matter what you do in a turn.

 

I dont quite believe that, cornering is at least as important as straight line speed.

Theres a great video of a lotus elise racing a big v8 american car type thing (I think it was a dodge viper, could have been a corvette). This was round the ring (nurenburg) plenty of traights and corners, neither could get away from the other, predictably the v8 pulled on the straights, elise caught up on the corners.

Evo8 sure has more HP than the RX-8 (thers now a factory 330bhp version in UK) but its hevier, and extra HP cannot make up for that round corners.

 

and its ugly

 

So would my 2,300 lb. Escort destroy the RX8 in the corners? I am a huge fan of low weight, but a stiff chassis, quick steering and lots of traction also go a long way.

 

Which the RX-8 has a plenty.

But the important thing is with the same stiff chassis, quick steering and tracion, the lighter car will always go round corners and accelerate quicker.

HP can offset the acceleration at a cost of extra weight, but cant help cornering.

 

to simply add to my # of posts: The Escort rulez!
Oh, yeah!..the subject: How can we compare the 2 cars??? (the 8 and the Mitsu, that is)

Someone said that a member in his 8 destroyed an Evo and something else: well, maybe the driver of the Evo was not as good as the one on the RX8. That counts a lot from what I've seen.

Do you all think the RX8 will have the same times around the track as the Evo, under the same conditions? I can guess. But I don't know. So until they are put one against the other several times with different drivers and venues...I won't risk saying anything.

Ohhhhh! and I thought this was a quarter mile thread originally. What happened??? How did we end up bashing a Mitsubishi??

 

I agree with you.

 

Getting things back on (1/4 mile) track (quit trying to pick an EVO fight...):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 19psi_GTI
My post might not prove it, but the TRAP TIMES do. Show me one RX-8 that is trapping anywhere near 97+mph...which is what a mid 14sec car trap at...Go ahead, prove me wrong...and dont show me someones Gtech time or a time running race gas, lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Look at all these 1/4 mile times. Only 2 of these times are from an RX-8, but as you can see, whichever they are do not stand out abnormally from the rest. Seems like a lot of examples of runs that don't conform to your rule. They all also have in common that they have great traction (all are on street tires too).

The fastest trap speed on the list is a 95.92 and the ET for that one is a 14.33



14.521@92.83 1.978 60ft
14.533@93.99 1.971 60ft
14.568@91.316 1.989 60ft
14.679@91.52 1.958 60ft
14.49@96 1.965 60ft
14.57@94.07 2.17 60ft
14.66@93.33 1.98 60ft
14.408@92.99 2.019 60ft
14.48@91.12 2.03 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.75@91.49 2.045 60ft
14.802@92.51 2.199 60ft
14.840@90.26 2.107 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.379@94.07 1.998 60ft
14.334@95.92 2.041 60ft

 

Ok, Rob, I see where you are going here. You are controlling for other variables (i.e. traction, chassis stiffness, steering, etc.) and I agree with that point regarding weight.

 

Hi Rx8-TX,
I completely agree that driver ability plays a huge role in autocross. However, on just about any track, with similar drivers, I'd expect the EVO to win.

 

As of today: the numbers (spec's) suggest the Evo has more than an 'edge' on the 8. Agreed!

 

Here is my take on this. Mazda f'ed up. The car they sent to the mags had 249 hp which equals a 14.5 with no problem. I re-read the articles from both C&D and R&T.

But when the production vehicles hit emissions they didn't pass. The only solution they can come up with and not **** off all the pre-order customers is an ECU remap. Of course, this lowers hp to 238, which Mazda even changed on their website at the end of August.

Apparantly the lowering of the claimed HP was Mazda's fix. I am sure they are currently working on a way to pass emissions and still keep all the ponies, but I doubt they will issue a fix for this first production run.

What prevented Mazda from testing the emissions before taking preorders at 249? Who knows, but I think it was a very critical mistake. A few tenths in the 1/4 is a huge difference at the strip.

On 19psi's claim, I highly doubt a guy with a 12 sec RX-7 is an unskilled driver. He is at least good enough to match mag numbers. So something is really messed up with that RX-8. Or 19psi needs glasses. I guess it could have been an auto though.

This isn't an autocross thread, but from my driving experience, the RX-8 would do extremely well for a number of reasons. Besides it's obvious rigidity, it is geared perfectly thanks to it's stratospheric redline. Some cars really need to hit third, and some cars need to drop to first, but the RX-8 has a pretty flat torque curve from 2000 to 9000. There was a Nordic Green eight at the last race I attended, but he didn't run.

As a side note, I saw a black one with the full appearance package yesterday and I about lost it. I am totally in love with the car. Unfortunately, it's not what I am looking for in terms of flat out speed. I can't wait for the RX-7.

 

Damn, I wrote this without really reading the last several posts. When and why did we start an EVO argument in a 1/4 mile thread?

 

I asked the same question..:o

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I do find interesting reading this after the same car ran a 1.98 60 ft and also a 14.54 1/4 mile time.

Any comments?

 

i completely agree wityh your post except the fastest speed is the one i highlighted here

 

The whole intent of O.R.A. post was to refute the crap that IKE, Blu350z and others have been spouting about trap speed determines your ET. They have been saying that there is no way that a trap of 91 or 92 could turn a mid 14. As soon as you call their bull with numbers, they drop off the thread, like they were never here. Judging by the silence of a few members, I think O.R.A's point was well made. Thank you O.R.A.

 

Huh? I didn't really see a point made bu O.R.A. that I would disagree with at least. Show me where I said trap speed determines your ET. I of all people would not say that because I drive an AWD car and AWD cars tend to trap low. Let me remind you, we still have yet to see slips and a run with non race gas that is in the mid 14s.

 

I was just pointing out that it seems that the RX-8 is able to do some pretty good launches for a RWD car.

It has great traction. Various people have mentioned how they've had problems coming off the line with the car because of having too much traction.

The rest of the times on my list are from WRX's.

A great launch will mess up the "you will need to trap at XX mph for a YY 1/4 mile time" comments, as you can see by the RX-8 and WRX numbers.

As for the whole power issue, I think that the RX-8 power numbers are still being overrated by Mazda. I also think that the car can do high to mid 14's completely stock and mazda "gets away with this" because of the car's traction. Obviously it will require a great launch and it is not as easy to get a great launch in the car, just like the S2000 (or the WRX, for that matter).

 

Sorry Ike, it wasn't you this time. Many others have been spouting gospel about trap=ET. That correlation is apparently not true. So hopefully it will stop being mentioned on this and other threads as absolute.

Ike your silence on this trap=ET, spoke volumns. I knew I could make it your fault. :D :D :D

 

Weren't they saying that Trap speed is an indication on whp ?