350Z's and WRX's make me mad!!!!
07-05-2005, 05:37 PM
#126
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is my take on everything:
You simply cannot compare cars period. No two cars are exactly identical. Even two cars of the same make and model are different. They may go through the same manufacturing process but no two cars are exactly the same. There will be a difference between these same cars performance-wise whether it be a miniscule margin or not. Take two RX-8s each driven by their own respective owner with 20,000 miles on the odometer. There will be even a bigger difference between these two vehicles due to the characteristics of driving habits as well as maintenance performed ie. octane type, oil change intervals, even what type of tires are being used whether high performance or All-Seasons. Environmental conditions play a part as well.
This is just comparing like vehicles. When you put the rest of the automotive fleet into the picture, you have so many variables with these vehicles as well before entering into the picture the actual rated hp, torque, etc. of said vehicles. When Mazda manufacturers produced the 8, they had an idea of what types of numbers they wanted to achieve. The RX-8 would not have been produced if they pulled 100 hp out of the Renesis. There would be no market for that type of car. Producing a "four door sports car" with 350 hp was not conceivable either. So they had some goals set forth that were legitimately attainable within a certain price range.
Every vehicle that is produced by a manufacturer is made with the goal of sales in mind. Every single vehicle is unique unto itself. Take a look at the SRT-4 and the RX-8 and you see two very different vehicles. Take a look at the Evo and the STi and you see a closer "comparison" but still two different vehicles with their own characteristics. Every vehicle is marketed with the hopes of making a connection to those buyers who are looking for that type of characteristic/characteristics in that vehicle. For the SRT-4 buyers, Dodge was looking for buyers who wanted a car for speed and power. Mazda engineers had other things in mind like overall balance and handling, etc. That isn't to say that the SRT-4 is a slouch in the cornering department necessarily but it isn't its strength either. It is a huge mistake to start comparing these cars when they are different entities altogether.
The same goes for the 350Z/RX-8 comparo. I didn't like the two seater and it was not practical for me and I did not like the plasticky interior. However, there are those who appreciate the power delivery in it and like the looks of it. Those that liked the 350Z did not like the RX-8 possibly due to its lack of power and torque. I am not comparing the GTO, WRX or Evo, but these three cars have great get-up-and-go but I cannot get past the styling aspect of these three. There are those who look past it due to loving the power delivery these provide the driver. To compare any two vehicles just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is like comparing a hammer to a drill. You are getting a different driving experience with each and every car. If someone just wanted speed and that defined a real car to them, they should look up the specs of whatever car they can afford in their price range and purchase that car. Other than that, every vehicle has a host of different characteristics that provide the driver a unique experience behind the wheel that only that vehicle can provide and no other.
You simply cannot compare cars period. No two cars are exactly identical. Even two cars of the same make and model are different. They may go through the same manufacturing process but no two cars are exactly the same. There will be a difference between these same cars performance-wise whether it be a miniscule margin or not. Take two RX-8s each driven by their own respective owner with 20,000 miles on the odometer. There will be even a bigger difference between these two vehicles due to the characteristics of driving habits as well as maintenance performed ie. octane type, oil change intervals, even what type of tires are being used whether high performance or All-Seasons. Environmental conditions play a part as well.
This is just comparing like vehicles. When you put the rest of the automotive fleet into the picture, you have so many variables with these vehicles as well before entering into the picture the actual rated hp, torque, etc. of said vehicles. When Mazda manufacturers produced the 8, they had an idea of what types of numbers they wanted to achieve. The RX-8 would not have been produced if they pulled 100 hp out of the Renesis. There would be no market for that type of car. Producing a "four door sports car" with 350 hp was not conceivable either. So they had some goals set forth that were legitimately attainable within a certain price range.
Every vehicle that is produced by a manufacturer is made with the goal of sales in mind. Every single vehicle is unique unto itself. Take a look at the SRT-4 and the RX-8 and you see two very different vehicles. Take a look at the Evo and the STi and you see a closer "comparison" but still two different vehicles with their own characteristics. Every vehicle is marketed with the hopes of making a connection to those buyers who are looking for that type of characteristic/characteristics in that vehicle. For the SRT-4 buyers, Dodge was looking for buyers who wanted a car for speed and power. Mazda engineers had other things in mind like overall balance and handling, etc. That isn't to say that the SRT-4 is a slouch in the cornering department necessarily but it isn't its strength either. It is a huge mistake to start comparing these cars when they are different entities altogether.
The same goes for the 350Z/RX-8 comparo. I didn't like the two seater and it was not practical for me and I did not like the plasticky interior. However, there are those who appreciate the power delivery in it and like the looks of it. Those that liked the 350Z did not like the RX-8 possibly due to its lack of power and torque. I am not comparing the GTO, WRX or Evo, but these three cars have great get-up-and-go but I cannot get past the styling aspect of these three. There are those who look past it due to loving the power delivery these provide the driver. To compare any two vehicles just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is like comparing a hammer to a drill. You are getting a different driving experience with each and every car. If someone just wanted speed and that defined a real car to them, they should look up the specs of whatever car they can afford in their price range and purchase that car. Other than that, every vehicle has a host of different characteristics that provide the driver a unique experience behind the wheel that only that vehicle can provide and no other.
07-05-2005, 08:07 PM
#128
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by -=Rowdy=-
To compare any two vehicles just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is like comparing a hammer to a drill.
07-05-2005, 09:26 PM
#129
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing two vehicles does not make any sense. I stand by that fact due to the uniqueness of anything out there. Just like the video comparison between the Vette and the Viper in the other forum, they are two different animals. If I had 60-90K to spend on a car and was curious as to which one to get, I would watch the videos out there like the one in the other forum and get a rough idea of what is out there. That is why they are popular. The Vette and the Viper are not two different hammers Ike.
07-05-2005, 09:32 PM
#130
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW-you apparently do not get the whole essence of this thread. If I was car hunting, I would look at mags and videos. They would help me get an idea of what each type of vehicle is offering for a driving experience. Comparison shopping in this manner is putting vehicles with roughly similar performance and pricing in a group test. They don't say "this car over here sucked because it was slower..." That's why test reviews still exist. Its the endless bantering that one car is better than the other because it does "A" and not "B" as well as the other car is what doesn't make any sense.
07-05-2005, 09:39 PM
#131
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by -=Rowdy=-
BTW-you apparently do not get the whole essence of this thread. If I was car hunting, I would look at mags and videos. They would help me get an idea of what each type of vehicle is offering for a driving experience. Comparison shopping in this manner is putting vehicles with roughly similar performance and pricing in a group test. They don't say "this car over here sucked because it was slower..." That's why test reviews still exist. Its the endless bantering that one car is better than the other because it does "A" and not "B" as well as the other car is what doesn't make any sense.
They all can be used for the same purpose, but for each job someone has in mind there's a hammer that will work out better.
07-06-2005, 10:50 AM
#134
Poder Rotativo
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Breese, IL
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like I said. I truly respect everyone's opinion and I do not race anymore, but I do test my car often. I do respect what anyone says about shifting at higher rpms but I found that waiting till you rev up till 7k after you already taken off doesn't fly with me. I have tested many ways many times and this works for me. any of yous that knows Papo Mazda from Chicago which tests his RX100 at low 8th's(now in Florida, he's the one made my 12a engine currently for sale) can ask him about Willie Mazda and say how much of a rookie I'm, not here to argue anyone's opinon, I respect them all, although this I consider in anyone's discretion. What works for anyone might not necessarily work for me. Regards and Sorry I posted, might just have to stick to reading so I don't cause any conflict in anything of what I say and again can't make eveyone happy...made a promise that I would not race anymore and I'm sticking to it so far, I got rid of my toy but not necessarily will let anyone just pass me anywhere where I feel it's safe. I love my RX8's it's definitely not what I expected but as someone said I don't see Corvette owners putting Corvette's down...might have ugly kids but I would never talk how ugly they are(not my case to clarify)...LOL...for those around the Great Lakes area might remember seing a white 1982 RX7 with a Ford 9" rear end and a sticker on the front windshield that read DreamToy and that was my toy...no more high maintenance toys and now in the St Louis area...of course with my RX8...
Last edited by williemazda; 07-06-2005 at 12:46 PM. Reason: forgot some details
07-06-2005, 05:47 PM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by williemazda
like I said. I truly respect everyone's opinion and I do not race anymore, but I do test my car often. I do respect what anyone says about shifting at higher rpms but I found that waiting till you rev up till 7k after you already taken off doesn't fly with me. I have tested many ways many times and this works for me. any of yous that knows Papo Mazda from Chicago which tests his RX100 at low 8th's(now in Florida, he's the one made my 12a engine currently for sale) can ask him about Willie Mazda and say how much of a rookie I'm, not here to argue anyone's opinon, I respect them all, although this I consider in anyone's discretion. What works for anyone might not necessarily work for me. Regards and Sorry I posted, might just have to stick to reading so I don't cause any conflict in anything of what I say and again can't make eveyone happy...made a promise that I would not race anymore and I'm sticking to it so far, I got rid of my toy but not necessarily will let anyone just pass me anywhere where I feel it's safe. I love my RX8's it's definitely not what I expected but as someone said I don't see Corvette owners putting Corvette's down...might have ugly kids but I would never talk how ugly they are(not my case to clarify)...LOL...for those around the Great Lakes area might remember seing a white 1982 RX7 with a Ford 9" rear end and a sticker on the front windshield that read DreamToy and that was my toy...no more high maintenance toys and now in the St Louis area...of course with my RX8...
07-07-2005, 08:17 AM
#139
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by -=Rowdy=-
This is my take on everything:
You simply cannot compare cars period. No two cars are exactly identical. Even two cars of the same make and model are different. They may go through the same manufacturing process but no two cars are exactly the same. There will be a difference between these same cars performance-wise whether it be a miniscule margin or not. Take two RX-8s each driven by their own respective owner with 20,000 miles on the odometer. There will be even a bigger difference between these two vehicles due to the characteristics of driving habits as well as maintenance performed ie. octane type, oil change intervals, even what type of tires are being used whether high performance or All-Seasons. Environmental conditions play a part as well.
This is just comparing like vehicles. When you put the rest of the automotive fleet into the picture, you have so many variables with these vehicles as well before entering into the picture the actual rated hp, torque, etc. of said vehicles. When Mazda manufacturers produced the 8, they had an idea of what types of numbers they wanted to achieve. The RX-8 would not have been produced if they pulled 100 hp out of the Renesis. There would be no market for that type of car. Producing a "four door sports car" with 350 hp was not conceivable either. So they had some goals set forth that were legitimately attainable within a certain price range.
Every vehicle that is produced by a manufacturer is made with the goal of sales in mind. Every single vehicle is unique unto itself. Take a look at the SRT-4 and the RX-8 and you see two very different vehicles. Take a look at the Evo and the STi and you see a closer "comparison" but still two different vehicles with their own characteristics. Every vehicle is marketed with the hopes of making a connection to those buyers who are looking for that type of characteristic/characteristics in that vehicle. For the SRT-4 buyers, Dodge was looking for buyers who wanted a car for speed and power. Mazda engineers had other things in mind like overall balance and handling, etc. That isn't to say that the SRT-4 is a slouch in the cornering department necessarily but it isn't its strength either. It is a huge mistake to start comparing these cars when they are different entities altogether.
The same goes for the 350Z/RX-8 comparo. I didn't like the two seater and it was not practical for me and I did not like the plasticky interior. However, there are those who appreciate the power delivery in it and like the looks of it. Those that liked the 350Z did not like the RX-8 possibly due to its lack of power and torque. I am not comparing the GTO, WRX or Evo, but these three cars have great get-up-and-go but I cannot get past the styling aspect of these three. There are those who look past it due to loving the power delivery these provide the driver. To compare any two vehicles just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is like comparing a hammer to a drill. You are getting a different driving experience with each and every car. If someone just wanted speed and that defined a real car to them, they should look up the specs of whatever car they can afford in their price range and purchase that car. Other than that, every vehicle has a host of different characteristics that provide the driver a unique experience behind the wheel that only that vehicle can provide and no other.
You simply cannot compare cars period. No two cars are exactly identical. Even two cars of the same make and model are different. They may go through the same manufacturing process but no two cars are exactly the same. There will be a difference between these same cars performance-wise whether it be a miniscule margin or not. Take two RX-8s each driven by their own respective owner with 20,000 miles on the odometer. There will be even a bigger difference between these two vehicles due to the characteristics of driving habits as well as maintenance performed ie. octane type, oil change intervals, even what type of tires are being used whether high performance or All-Seasons. Environmental conditions play a part as well.
This is just comparing like vehicles. When you put the rest of the automotive fleet into the picture, you have so many variables with these vehicles as well before entering into the picture the actual rated hp, torque, etc. of said vehicles. When Mazda manufacturers produced the 8, they had an idea of what types of numbers they wanted to achieve. The RX-8 would not have been produced if they pulled 100 hp out of the Renesis. There would be no market for that type of car. Producing a "four door sports car" with 350 hp was not conceivable either. So they had some goals set forth that were legitimately attainable within a certain price range.
Every vehicle that is produced by a manufacturer is made with the goal of sales in mind. Every single vehicle is unique unto itself. Take a look at the SRT-4 and the RX-8 and you see two very different vehicles. Take a look at the Evo and the STi and you see a closer "comparison" but still two different vehicles with their own characteristics. Every vehicle is marketed with the hopes of making a connection to those buyers who are looking for that type of characteristic/characteristics in that vehicle. For the SRT-4 buyers, Dodge was looking for buyers who wanted a car for speed and power. Mazda engineers had other things in mind like overall balance and handling, etc. That isn't to say that the SRT-4 is a slouch in the cornering department necessarily but it isn't its strength either. It is a huge mistake to start comparing these cars when they are different entities altogether.
The same goes for the 350Z/RX-8 comparo. I didn't like the two seater and it was not practical for me and I did not like the plasticky interior. However, there are those who appreciate the power delivery in it and like the looks of it. Those that liked the 350Z did not like the RX-8 possibly due to its lack of power and torque. I am not comparing the GTO, WRX or Evo, but these three cars have great get-up-and-go but I cannot get past the styling aspect of these three. There are those who look past it due to loving the power delivery these provide the driver. To compare any two vehicles just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It is like comparing a hammer to a drill. You are getting a different driving experience with each and every car. If someone just wanted speed and that defined a real car to them, they should look up the specs of whatever car they can afford in their price range and purchase that car. Other than that, every vehicle has a host of different characteristics that provide the driver a unique experience behind the wheel that only that vehicle can provide and no other.
When comparing sports cars for a general audience, the easiest method of comparison is performance, as the "other stuff" (interior, looks, and drivability) are subjective. Some people prefer a two seat car, some have a need for 4; others don't care about a ruff ride, some absolutely hate it. Therefore when you compare cars you must leave the subjective judgments out of the picture.
Performance is the ultimate objective category as numbers are what they are. 0-60 times are pretty much always the same. The ability to get the car around a track in a particular time (assuming the same driver) is a more relevant measure of performance, because it leaves personal judgments out of the picture. The personal judgments should be left to the individual.
All in all the 8 is a great car, but when it comes to acceleration the 8 is not so great, and unfortunately the modern sports car is overwhelmingly judged by it. However, this is not surprising because most people drive their cars in a strait line for a majority of their commute. If Mazda marketed the car as a family sedan, this would not be a big deal, but it's a sports car, and therefore they failed to achieve one of their overall objectives.
So if you want to argue that you love you 8 because it’s sexy, and woman love it, well I can’t argue with you. However, when you want to compare the two cars for performance purposes it’s completely irrelevant.
Last edited by Pkskull77; 07-07-2005 at 11:09 AM.
07-07-2005, 10:52 AM
#140
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pkskull77
I agree that different genre of car should not be compared (i.e. Sports car to Family Sedan), but comparing the 8 to the 350z and the WRX is not a far stretch. All three are sports cars that go about their business in very different ways, but none-the-less market to an audience that wants performance over the practical. If a car is able to manage both that’s fantastic, but it must do so without sacrificing the bottom line.
When comparing sports cars for a general audience, the easiest method of comparison is performance, as the "other stuff" (interior, looks, and drivability) are subjective. Some people prefer a two car, some have a need for 4; others don't care about a ruff ride, some absolutely hate it. Therefore when you compare cars you must leave the subjective judgments out of the picture.
Performance is the ultimate objective category numbers are what they are. 0-60 times are pretty much always the same. The ability to get the car around a track in a particular time (assuming the same driver) is a more relevant measure of performance, because it leaves personal judgments out of the picture. The personal judgments should be left to the individual.
All in all the 8 is a great car, but when it comes to acceleration the 8 is not so great, and unfortunately the modern sports car is overwhelmingly judged by it. However, this is not surprising because most people drive their cars in a strait line for a majority of their commute. If Mazda marketed the car as a family sedan, this would not be a big deal, but it's a sports car, and therefore they failed to achieve one of their overall objectives.
So if you want to argue that you love you 8 because it’s sexy, and woman love it, well I can’t argue with you. However, when you want to compare the two cars for performance purposes it’s completely irrelevant.
When comparing sports cars for a general audience, the easiest method of comparison is performance, as the "other stuff" (interior, looks, and drivability) are subjective. Some people prefer a two car, some have a need for 4; others don't care about a ruff ride, some absolutely hate it. Therefore when you compare cars you must leave the subjective judgments out of the picture.
Performance is the ultimate objective category numbers are what they are. 0-60 times are pretty much always the same. The ability to get the car around a track in a particular time (assuming the same driver) is a more relevant measure of performance, because it leaves personal judgments out of the picture. The personal judgments should be left to the individual.
All in all the 8 is a great car, but when it comes to acceleration the 8 is not so great, and unfortunately the modern sports car is overwhelmingly judged by it. However, this is not surprising because most people drive their cars in a strait line for a majority of their commute. If Mazda marketed the car as a family sedan, this would not be a big deal, but it's a sports car, and therefore they failed to achieve one of their overall objectives.
So if you want to argue that you love you 8 because it’s sexy, and woman love it, well I can’t argue with you. However, when you want to compare the two cars for performance purposes it’s completely irrelevant.
Thank you!! Someone reasonable on this board after all.
100% agreed.
People spend their time driving what...1% MAX on the track, the rest on the road. Making your decision on a car based on something you'd do 1% of the time (if that) is kinda dumb in most people eyes...that's why straight line performance is so important....unless ofcourse you're buying this car for the track only and have another car as a daily...
07-07-2005, 11:35 AM
#141
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People spend their time driving what...1% MAX on the track, the rest on the road. Making your decision on a car based on something you'd do 1% of the time (if that) is kinda dumb in most people eyes...that's why straight line performance is so important....unless ofcourse you're buying this car for the track only and have another car as a daily...
I spend a lot more time on curves than I do at wide-open throttle -- particularly if I was driving a 13-second car which I would undoubtedly modify to a 11 or 12-second car. I'm not going to use that kind of power on a daily basis. If you drove a 350Z how often would you run a sub-14.5 1/4-mile with it? I'm betting probably about the same 1% of the time. So why make your decision on it? Why is that argument any more viable?
I'm not discounting the value of a car's performance at WOT, just the importance that your average American (to make a vast generalization) places on it above all else. In virtually every category of automobile the most critically-acclaimed models are often not the fastest amongst their peers. This holds true in everything from Economy Cars, to Exotics, even to Muscle Cars. While this often holds true in the US media, it is particularly evident outside of the US.
What I do spend 100% of my time doing is driving my car. And while mashing the pedal and watching the revs go up is certainly a part of that, and a very fun part, the interaction between the car, the road, and myself is more important than ANY quantitative performance figure. You can call it subjective, because it is, but you can't discount the value of it simply because it can't be quantitated and hold all quantitative figures above all else simply because they can be.
So while you can "agree" that Mazda "failed in one of their objectives" because it wasn't "fast enough" or something, I'm going to look for where exactly they said that was one of their objectives. Perhaps you can help me find it too. What was their objective was to do what they've always done -- create a extremely well-balanced, highly critically-acclaimed, but not the fastest, sports car for the masses. It's what Mazda does and the RX-8 is a damn fine example of exemplary Mazda engineering, just as the 350Z is a damn fine example of Nissan Engineering. Different strokes.
Last edited by Sigma; 07-07-2005 at 11:38 AM.
07-07-2005, 12:00 PM
#142
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sigma
And it's equally absurd to compare a car's performance at Wide-Open Throttle.
I spend a lot more time on curves than I do at wide-open throttle -- particularly if I was driving a 13-second car which I would undoubtedly modify to a 11 or 12-second car. I'm not going to use that kind of power on a daily basis. If you drove a 350Z how often would you run a sub-14.5 1/4-mile with it? I'm betting probably about the same 1% of the time. So why make your decision on it? Why is that argument any more viable?
I'm not discounting the value of a car's performance at WOT, just the importance that your average American (to make a vast generalization) places on it above all else. In virtually every category of automobile the most critically-acclaimed models are often not the fastest amongst their peers. This holds true in everything from Economy Cars, to Exotics, even to Muscle Cars. While this often holds true in the US media, it is particularly evident outside of the US.
What I do spend 100% of my time doing is driving my car. And while mashing the pedal and watching the revs go up is certainly a part of that, and a very fun part, the interaction between the car, the road, and myself is more important than ANY quantitative performance figure. You can call it subjective, because it is, but you can't discount the value of it simply because it can't be quantitated and hold all quantitative figures above all else simply because they can be.
So while you can "agree" that Mazda "failed in one of their objectives" because it wasn't "fast enough" or something, I'm going to look for where exactly they said that was one of their objectives. Perhaps you can help me find it too. What was their objective was to do what they've always done -- create a extremely well-balanced, highly critically-acclaimed, but not the fastest, sports car for the masses. It's what Mazda does and the RX-8 is a damn fine example of exemplary Mazda engineering, just as the 350Z is a damn fine example of Nissan Engineering. Different strokes.
I spend a lot more time on curves than I do at wide-open throttle -- particularly if I was driving a 13-second car which I would undoubtedly modify to a 11 or 12-second car. I'm not going to use that kind of power on a daily basis. If you drove a 350Z how often would you run a sub-14.5 1/4-mile with it? I'm betting probably about the same 1% of the time. So why make your decision on it? Why is that argument any more viable?
I'm not discounting the value of a car's performance at WOT, just the importance that your average American (to make a vast generalization) places on it above all else. In virtually every category of automobile the most critically-acclaimed models are often not the fastest amongst their peers. This holds true in everything from Economy Cars, to Exotics, even to Muscle Cars. While this often holds true in the US media, it is particularly evident outside of the US.
What I do spend 100% of my time doing is driving my car. And while mashing the pedal and watching the revs go up is certainly a part of that, and a very fun part, the interaction between the car, the road, and myself is more important than ANY quantitative performance figure. You can call it subjective, because it is, but you can't discount the value of it simply because it can't be quantitated and hold all quantitative figures above all else simply because they can be.
So while you can "agree" that Mazda "failed in one of their objectives" because it wasn't "fast enough" or something, I'm going to look for where exactly they said that was one of their objectives. Perhaps you can help me find it too. What was their objective was to do what they've always done -- create a extremely well-balanced, highly critically-acclaimed, but not the fastest, sports car for the masses. It's what Mazda does and the RX-8 is a damn fine example of exemplary Mazda engineering, just as the 350Z is a damn fine example of Nissan Engineering. Different strokes.
I would be very willing to bet that the speed your taking curves at could comfortably be achieved by both the WRX and the 350z.
07-07-2005, 12:10 PM
#143
Humpin legs and takin nam
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Clearwater, Fl
Posts: 2,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So people accellerate RAPIDLY from stoplight to stoplight 99% of the time?????
Originally Posted by Niro
Thank you!! Someone reasonable on this board after all.
100% agreed.
People spend their time driving what...1% MAX on the track, the rest on the road. Making your decision on a car based on something you'd do 1% of the time (if that) is kinda dumb in most people eyes...that's why straight line performance is so important....unless ofcourse you're buying this car for the track only and have another car as a daily...
100% agreed.
People spend their time driving what...1% MAX on the track, the rest on the road. Making your decision on a car based on something you'd do 1% of the time (if that) is kinda dumb in most people eyes...that's why straight line performance is so important....unless ofcourse you're buying this car for the track only and have another car as a daily...
07-07-2005, 12:10 PM
#144
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sigma
And it's equally absurd to compare a car's performance at Wide-Open Throttle.
I spend a lot more time on curves than I do at wide-open throttle -- particularly if I was driving a 13-second car which I would undoubtedly modify to a 11 or 12-second car. I'm not going to use that kind of power on a daily basis. If you drove a 350Z how often would you run a sub-14.5 1/4-mile with it? I'm betting probably about the same 1% of the time. So why make your decision on it? Why is that argument any more viable?
I'm not discounting the value of a car's performance at WOT, just the importance that your average American (to make a vast generalization) places on it above all else. In virtually every category of automobile the most critically-acclaimed models are often not the fastest amongst their peers. This holds true in everything from Economy Cars, to Exotics, even to Muscle Cars. While this often holds true in the US media, it is particularly evident outside of the US.
What I do spend 100% of my time doing is driving my car. And while mashing the pedal and watching the revs go up is certainly a part of that, and a very fun part, the interaction between the car, the road, and myself is more important than ANY quantitative performance figure. You can call it subjective, because it is, but you can't discount the value of it simply because it can't be quantitated and hold all quantitative figures above all else simply because they can be.
So while you can "agree" that Mazda "failed in one of their objectives" because it wasn't "fast enough" or something, I'm going to look for where exactly they said that was one of their objectives. Perhaps you can help me find it too. What was their objective was to do what they've always done -- create a extremely well-balanced, highly critically-acclaimed, but not the fastest, sports car for the masses. It's what Mazda does and the RX-8 is a damn fine example of exemplary Mazda engineering, just as the 350Z is a damn fine example of Nissan Engineering. Different strokes.
I spend a lot more time on curves than I do at wide-open throttle -- particularly if I was driving a 13-second car which I would undoubtedly modify to a 11 or 12-second car. I'm not going to use that kind of power on a daily basis. If you drove a 350Z how often would you run a sub-14.5 1/4-mile with it? I'm betting probably about the same 1% of the time. So why make your decision on it? Why is that argument any more viable?
I'm not discounting the value of a car's performance at WOT, just the importance that your average American (to make a vast generalization) places on it above all else. In virtually every category of automobile the most critically-acclaimed models are often not the fastest amongst their peers. This holds true in everything from Economy Cars, to Exotics, even to Muscle Cars. While this often holds true in the US media, it is particularly evident outside of the US.
What I do spend 100% of my time doing is driving my car. And while mashing the pedal and watching the revs go up is certainly a part of that, and a very fun part, the interaction between the car, the road, and myself is more important than ANY quantitative performance figure. You can call it subjective, because it is, but you can't discount the value of it simply because it can't be quantitated and hold all quantitative figures above all else simply because they can be.
So while you can "agree" that Mazda "failed in one of their objectives" because it wasn't "fast enough" or something, I'm going to look for where exactly they said that was one of their objectives. Perhaps you can help me find it too. What was their objective was to do what they've always done -- create a extremely well-balanced, highly critically-acclaimed, but not the fastest, sports car for the masses. It's what Mazda does and the RX-8 is a damn fine example of exemplary Mazda engineering, just as the 350Z is a damn fine example of Nissan Engineering. Different strokes.
If you drive mostly on the highways...you can FEEL performance, you have much more opportunity to use a cars acceleration whenever you want, most people don't go down a twisty road on a daily basis to do 80mph and take advantage of great handling...but they do accelerate all the time, and can do it pretty much whenever they want, and they can FEEL it, pretty much whenever they want on a daily basis. That's much more attractive then a little better handling and worse performance to most people.
07-07-2005, 12:13 PM
#145
Humpin legs and takin nam
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Clearwater, Fl
Posts: 2,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get ticketed for "exhibition of power" even if you do not exceed the speed limits.
Originally Posted by Pkskull77
It is completely legal for me to mash the gas at a green light and keep it there all the way to the speed limit. .
07-07-2005, 12:13 PM
#146
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by guy321
So people race from stoplight to stoplight at full throttle 99% of the time?????
No but your crazy if you think you can't feel a difference in acceleration in casual driving from stoplight to stoplight in a wrx and an rx8...
and stoplight to stoplight is still opportunity to accelerate as fast as you want (up to speed limit ofcourse)....that's pretty much all the time, whenever you want...when do you get the opportunity to test the handling of an rx8....to the point where it will out handle other cars.
Last edited by Niro; 07-07-2005 at 12:15 PM.
07-07-2005, 12:15 PM
#147
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by guy321
You can get ticketed for "exhibition of power" even if you do not exceed the speed limits.
07-07-2005, 12:16 PM
#148
Humpin legs and takin nam
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Clearwater, Fl
Posts: 2,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on how many thousands of bees your exhaust sounds like
Originally Posted by Niro
LOL you're as likely to get a ticket for that as you are for not having your windshield wipers on while your headlights are off...
07-07-2005, 12:27 PM
#149
I like rusty spoons
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A guy in Calgary with an RX-8 got a ticket for revving his engine too high. He was taking off in first and apparently had redlined it. I forget what the actual ticket was for, but he tried explaining to the cop that it's a rotary engine and whatnot but the cop wouldn't buy it.
07-07-2005, 12:32 PM
#150
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by khtm
A guy in Calgary with an RX-8 got a ticket for revving his engine too high. He was taking off in first and apparently had redlined it. I forget what the actual ticket was for, but he tried explaining to the cop that it's a rotary engine and whatnot but the cop wouldn't buy it.
If you go down a highway at 90mph to see how it handles in the turns, you are much more likely to get a ticket, probably even more....