What do you all think of this RX-8...
Thread Starter
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 24,299
Likes: 380
From: Beach Cities, CA
Looks great but still not impressed with the power of the thing. Only dropped another .5 seconds from the 60. My biggest issue was the 5-60 mph of this car (believe it is actually in the 7 second range). Not sure if this will make a difference in that performance category
But looks and handling wise
But looks and handling wise
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
It's fixed. Now try again...
:troutslap
:troutslap
As for this comment:
Originally Posted by Sam Mitani
Some of us feel that the stock Renesis rotary's character is too much like that of Honda's VTEC-equipped engine, where it needs a big handful of revs to realize max horsepower.
)
Trending Topics
Originally Posted by DEI99662
Its still a Ford, so 

"you know, i was actually thinking about a vanquish, but i decided not cause it was a ford" <-- sounds kinda stupid
Originally Posted by Python2121
thanks for the enlightening comment
"you know, i was actually thinking about a vanquish, but i decided not cause it was a ford" <-- sounds kinda stupid
"you know, i was actually thinking about a vanquish, but i decided not cause it was a ford" <-- sounds kinda stupid
That was a very nearsighted comment.
Originally Posted by Red-CL
Me too but like the Crossfire, they look a lot faster than they are.
That car is fast as hell.I agree with one of the previous posters. I love the RX-8 but I feel like it deserves a Mazdaspeed version in order to get the people really interested. Since not everyone is going to go for the ''four-door sports car'' they have to get the attention of the public. I think 300 horses would do it...
I liked the RX 8 when it firrst came out. Now I dont mainly because out of all the ones I see in my neighborhood, 90% are women driven autos and are bone stock. Have yet to see one tricked out. Interior is hot though.
Originally Posted by Red-CL
Me too but like the Crossfire, they look a lot faster than they are.
Originally Posted by MattT516
Except for the SRT-6 version...
That car is fast as hell.
I agree with one of the previous posters. I love the RX-8 but I feel like it deserves a Mazdaspeed version in order to get the people really interested. Since not everyone is going to go for the ''four-door sports car'' they have to get the attention of the public. I think 300 horses would do it...
That car is fast as hell.I agree with one of the previous posters. I love the RX-8 but I feel like it deserves a Mazdaspeed version in order to get the people really interested. Since not everyone is going to go for the ''four-door sports car'' they have to get the attention of the public. I think 300 horses would do it...
I still wonder why they don't shove the 3 rotor variant in this car. It has more than enough hood space for it.
I still like the RX-7s and RX-8s. They are very good balanced cars. You can hang the back end out there all day long with little effort and still feel very much in control.
But I agree. It's the epitome of the "torqueless wonder". It really needs a turbo/supercharger in there to help with mid-range torque production.
Originally Posted by Lung Fu Mo Shi
The hard part is that the rotary engine just barely passes emissions. A turbo isn't going to help.
I still wonder why they don't shove the 3 rotor variant in this car. It has more than enough hood space for it.
I still like the RX-7s and RX-8s. They are very good balanced cars. You can hang the back end out there all day long with little effort and still feel very much in control.
But I agree. It's the epitome of the "torqueless wonder". It really needs a turbo/supercharger in there to help with mid-range torque production.
I still wonder why they don't shove the 3 rotor variant in this car. It has more than enough hood space for it.
I still like the RX-7s and RX-8s. They are very good balanced cars. You can hang the back end out there all day long with little effort and still feel very much in control.
But I agree. It's the epitome of the "torqueless wonder". It really needs a turbo/supercharger in there to help with mid-range torque production.
Originally Posted by Red-CL
Me too but like the Crossfire, they look a lot faster than they are.
Why does everyone dog Mazda for it not making 300hp? Mazda has NEVER been about huge hp/tq numbers. They make nimble, good looking cars. They are a niche manufacturer, and I dont think they plan on changing that any time soon. They have an extremely loyal fan base that would much prefer a car weigh under 3k lbs, than make 300hp.
I for one def like the RX8, it handles like a godamn racecar. Def was much better balanced than the 350Z Enthu I drove. It didnt have a ton of low end power, but at a race track how often will it be below 6k rpm? Maybe for the first 50', otherwise it'll always be in its powerband, unless the driver is an idiot.
I for one def like the RX8, it handles like a godamn racecar. Def was much better balanced than the 350Z Enthu I drove. It didnt have a ton of low end power, but at a race track how often will it be below 6k rpm? Maybe for the first 50', otherwise it'll always be in its powerband, unless the driver is an idiot.
Originally Posted by Water-S
I'm not trying to tick you off man but the S2000 doesn't really come alive until you hit the V-TEC so it has no torque in the bottom or mid range(IMO). once you hit about 5500-6000 watch out!
Personally, for a "toy car" I'd like to get either a Mazda RX-8, S2000 or 350Z depending on cost and fun-factor (and if I can squeeze my fat ass into a S2000).
The RX-8 isn't the fastest thing on the planet, but would be a blast to drive through the coastal roads in Oregon. The S2000 is the same, but with the added benefit of more power to weight, Honda reliability and a drop-top. The 350Z is nice, and can be modded successfully into a turbo variant making 425HP to the wheels to make a very fast car.





