15.2@91.86 Mph
#126
>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.
evo is AWD, which is never going to beat a good RWD car in autox.
bring your evo to any SFR-SCCA autox event, and ill put down money on beating every evo there (prep and tires being comparable).
james
>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.
evo is AWD, which is never going to beat a good RWD car in autox.
bring your evo to any SFR-SCCA autox event, and ill put down money on beating every evo there (prep and tires being comparable).
james
#127
Originally posted by O.R.A.
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).
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).
I agree with your last statement, and I think the mid 14 runs will be few and far between. You're not going to see many people getting 1.9 60' with the RX-8 and I still believe Judge Ito was helped in those runs by the race gas. I think he would agree, why else would he chose to use the race gas.
Ike
#128
NO RX8-TX, the statement was not made WHP versus trap speed. Here is what blu350z said.
"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."
Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.
Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.
"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."
Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.
Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.
#129
Originally posted by Chuck Clifford
NO RX8-TX, the statement was not made WHP versus trap speed. Here is what blu350z said.
"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."
Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.
Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.
NO RX8-TX, the statement was not made WHP versus trap speed. Here is what blu350z said.
"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."
Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.
Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.
It seems the RX8 is very capable of getting very good 60 ft times. But that is only good for standing starts. On the highway, good launches are taken out of the equation. Power takes over. And MPH in the 1/4 is the clasic tale tale of power (with good shifting ability of course)
Regardless of how fast/slow the rx8 is I think its a nice alternative to the G35 coupe (both seat 4 persons). Even if the RX8 is slower its MUCH more distinctive and unique. I got to closely examine and sit in a gorgeous silver ext. black int. RX8 this weekend and really liked the comfort of the seats in front, the controls and the space inside. And im 6-3. The interior is much much nicer than the one in a 350z.
I compared them side by side since the two cars were at my friends performance shop. Next to them was an M3 and an EVO. The EVO is pure function and utilitarian. Its meant to go fast, stop fast and handle great. It has boy racer looks and econo interior. Similar to a subaru (EVO exterior is nicer than the wrx imho).
The M3 well what can i say, its expensive.
So if i was between the RX8 and the 350z i would take the RX8 for daily use no doubt. Both at the same price. If I wanted a car for racing mostly well the 350z is better for that purpose. It is faster. But the RX8 looks a lot better inside. Is more comfy and more practical but it is slower. WIth a well rounded package like the one in the rx8 maybe slow or not so fast isnt such a bad thing as long as one recognizes its limitations.
Last edited by Sneakyracer; 10-26-2003 at 09:24 PM.
#130
350z go seems to know what he's saying in general, but you cannot provide a rule of thumb for correlating changes in 60' times to either ET or trap speed. (also, you said that evo's and STi average 1.8-1.9, how did you obtain data to produce such an average. This sounds high to me. My lightly modded awd talon runs consistent 1.7's on extremely poor tires, with a best of 1.61).
If you read books by those who have truly been in the buisness for a long time, and are very experienced, they will never quote a number such as you did, becuase it can't be done. I definitely see more of a benefit in my et than .11-.12 for every tenth decrease in 60' time. There are far to many variables from one car to another to make this generalization. Furthermore, I'm suprised that you see only .11 gain for a .1 decrease in a 350z's 60'. Thinking in terms of kinematics, whatever additional speed enables you to reach the 60' mark .1 seconds quicker, you are traveling that additional speed (although rather small) for the entire length of the track. Anyway...
The bottom line is, you can't make such a generaliztion for all cars.
If you read books by those who have truly been in the buisness for a long time, and are very experienced, they will never quote a number such as you did, becuase it can't be done. I definitely see more of a benefit in my et than .11-.12 for every tenth decrease in 60' time. There are far to many variables from one car to another to make this generalization. Furthermore, I'm suprised that you see only .11 gain for a .1 decrease in a 350z's 60'. Thinking in terms of kinematics, whatever additional speed enables you to reach the 60' mark .1 seconds quicker, you are traveling that additional speed (although rather small) for the entire length of the track. Anyway...
The bottom line is, you can't make such a generaliztion for all cars.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post