RX-8 Video - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

This is a discussion on RX-8 Video within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Ack sorry for being a ***** I want a ride in your car because I love being thrown back in ...

  1. #46
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Ack sorry for being a *****

    I want a ride in your car because I love being thrown back in the seat. And I'd be giving all the up if I sold the WRX for the RX-8. But I have this gut feeling that the RX-8 will offer a much more fun ride and offer a level of driving finesse that both the WRXes and SRT-4s can't offer. Not to mention luxury. I'd probably get the Grand touring package w/ nav system.

    But if you ever looked into rotary engine technology it is just so impressive. If the engineers did their job right, and I'm sure they did the way they talk this engine up, it'll last forever, get decent mileage, and provide some nice high revving fun.

    Not dissing your car, just dispelling some of the assumptions about race cars vs. what we get to drive. Even the Subarus and Mitsubishis. A better real world # you should point people to is how the SRT-4 is doing in USTCC or other Road racing series. Rally cars are too outlandishly modified to compare. Especially those tuned for hillclimbing.

    You wanna talk tech sometime its cool. Do you have plans for a Quaife LSD in the future?

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #47
    Registered User drizze99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bear, DE
    Posts
    753
    Yes and no. I know it sounds odd, but I want to see what others experience with it first. I know I'm not going to road race it so I'm not sure if I really want to lay a "G" down it. There are so many other things that I want. A 3" turbo back exhaust just came out for it and I really want that. I also would like to lower the stance of the car with either springs or coilovers and I need rims!!! I need a bigger patch on the ground than the 205 has to offer.

    That ride will be waiting for you if you make it to the meet!

    I know rotaries can be made faster. We'll have to wait and see what this generation of rotary brings to the table in the way of mods, but it should be plenty. Anything that comes out of Japan always has great modablity. (<---- is that a word?)
    2006 Subaru Impreza 2.5i [Bone Stock]
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 [303 hp/323 tq] - SOLD

  4. #48
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Might I recommend Falken Azenis as a good tire choice. The little you give up in standing water (ie rivers flowing across the highway, just drive slowly through these), you gain a ton in dry and drizzling weather. THey absolutely refuse to give up traction and at the cost of like $98 / tire are unbeatable in price. I'd recommend them for any car and enthusiast on a budget (like me).

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  5. #49
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    231
    isn't torque relative to the amount of power spread out over the rpm range? in other words, somethign with close hp to tq numbers usually have a quick and powerful power delivery, where as cars with huge hp numbers but low torque are usually high-revving, with more gradual power delivery?

  6. #50
    Registered User drizze99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Bear, DE
    Posts
    753
    Falken Azenis ST115 or Sport? Thanks for the reccomendation!! At 250/ea for the stock Pilots, I NEED alternatives!! I was also looking at the Yokohama AVS Sports.
    2006 Subaru Impreza 2.5i [Bone Stock]
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 [303 hp/323 tq] - SOLD

  7. #51
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Falken Azenis Sport... but don't take just my advice for them. Ask a whole bunch of autoXers. It is pretty much the defacto street tire standard for grip. And whats good on autoX translate to everyday driving, at least when you drive spirited

    Grassroots Motorsports had a great review of them. I'll try to dig up the article.

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  8. #52
    Registered User Simp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Orlando/Atlanta
    Posts
    81
    I gotta jump in here, as dumb of an argument as this is

    First things first. The Rx-8 is a beautiful car. Really. I can't think of any cars on the road that even come close to its styling. It's powertrain, however, will have to impress me before I like it. N/A rotaries are, by nature, torqueless wonders (see: Honda). For whatever reasons, wankels can't make torque without forced induction. This is cool for racing, when you can keep the revs up and don't really need as much torque, but for everyday driving it blows. Nobody believes me when I tell them my car gets decent mileage. "It's a 5.7l dude" Yeah, but because I have gobs of torque, I can shift a hair above idle, usually around 1500rpms, around town and its not unbarably slow. My car gets better gas mileage than an S2000. So does a Z06. And as someone has said before, "a 405hp car should not get better gas mileage than a 240hp car." Mainly, my point is that torque is very important for daily driveability, and the rotary's inability to provide this without forced induction kinda sucks.

    To the guy who belives the RX-8 will be reliable: pray. I don't know much about this new engine (other than its a wankel, its new, and it hasn't been out nearly long enough to label it as reliable), but judging by the RX-7, I'd say theres a good chance it will give you problems. Very few people have RX-7s as daily drivers. Why? Because they aren't reliable. A buddy of mines brother-in-law had one, it spent A MONTH in the shop per year, if you added up all the days. That's ****ing terrible. I understand the RX-7 was forced induction, and i've heard that previous generations NA wankels were prettty reliable, but, take into consideration.
    a. You have eto change your oil more and more precisely. Bad oil + rotary = total engine failure.
    b. It's design makes it extremely difficult to work on.
    c. since it's the only car in the states with that type of engine, replacement parts will be pricey
    d. Only certain mechanics can work on it, making repairs even pricier.
    Ill just leave my wankel review at that.

    To the guy who says the 350Z handles roughly or whatever and the G35C will give the RX8 a run for its money. WTF, dude. It's based on the same chasis, and the Z is lighter. How do you figure.

    And to the guy who thinks the ITR and SRT4 wold be comparable on an auto-x: thatd take an course with TONS of turns for the ITR to stand a chance. The power advantage of the dodge would certainly make it the champ, if driven well, in any courses that weren't packed with hairpin turns.
    2000 LS1 Camaro M6

  9. #53
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Originally posted by Simp
    I gotta jump in here, as dumb of an argument as this is

    First things first. The Rx-8 is a beautiful car. Really. I can't think of any cars on the road that even come close to its styling. It's powertrain, however, will have to impress me before I like it. N/A rotaries are, by nature, torqueless wonders (see: Honda). For whatever reasons, wankels can't make torque without forced induction. This is cool for racing, when you can keep the revs up and don't really need as much torque, but for everyday driving it blows. Nobody believes me when I tell them my car gets decent mileage. "It's a 5.7l dude" Yeah, but because I have gobs of torque, I can shift a hair above idle, usually around 1500rpms, around town and its not unbarably slow. My car gets better gas mileage than an S2000. So does a Z06. And as someone has said before, "a 405hp car should not get better gas mileage than a 240hp car." Mainly, my point is that torque is very important for daily driveability, and the rotary's inability to provide this without forced induction kinda sucks.

    To the guy who belives the RX-8 will be reliable: pray. I don't know much about this new engine (other than its a wankel, its new, and it hasn't been out nearly long enough to label it as reliable), but judging by the RX-7, I'd say theres a good chance it will give you problems. Very few people have RX-7s as daily drivers. Why? Because they aren't reliable. A buddy of mines brother-in-law had one, it spent A MONTH in the shop per year, if you added up all the days. That's ****ing terrible. I understand the RX-7 was forced induction, and i've heard that previous generations NA wankels were prettty reliable, but, take into consideration.
    a. You have eto change your oil more and more precisely. Bad oil + rotary = total engine failure.
    b. It's design makes it extremely difficult to work on.
    c. since it's the only car in the states with that type of engine, replacement parts will be pricey
    d. Only certain mechanics can work on it, making repairs even pricier.
    Ill just leave my wankel review at that.

    To the guy who says the 350Z handles roughly or whatever and the G35C will give the RX8 a run for its money. WTF, dude. It's based on the same chasis, and the Z is lighter. How do you figure.

    And to the guy who thinks the ITR and SRT4 wold be comparable on an auto-x: thatd take an course with TONS of turns for the ITR to stand a chance. The power advantage of the dodge would certainly make it the champ, if driven well, in any courses that weren't packed with hairpin turns.
    Woah there is alot here so I'll just ry to answer what I can.

    First off, I'll will wait and see how the RX-8 does before buying blindly. If it has lots of problems then I won't get it. So don't think that this enthusiast doesn't know how to shop for a car. Secondly, I have witness 350z handling, have you. Same chassis yes, G35C more balanced F/R, YES. I have seen 350z whip around and know of some people smacking them into stuff. All the magazine have said the same thing, I suggest a little reading. And 3rd, Mazda has been promting this engine for a long time, its disaster is the disaster for all future rotary engined cars. If Mazda fails here, they are doomed and so is the Wankel. With that in mind not only do I believe it will be reliable, but given their racing history and the reliability of the N/A rotaries in Improved Touring, etc..., I have no doubt they have built upon an already reliabile setup. And its funny how you compare 3rd gen RX7s to the RX8 since most of the problems were associated with the heat generated by the twin turbos. And if you can't keep up with the maintenance of the rotary engine, don't get one. But it won't prevent more people from getting it for its unique character, amazing handling, and ability to seat 4. It seems you should research more into what you are criticizing before commenting. I usually don't spend this much time responding to posts that aren't backed up by anything but hearsay. The proof is that Mazda has enjoyed a reliable racing history thanks to their rotary engines and particularly the N/A ones. And I could care less for a Corvette. While the C5Rs are wonderful race cars. A slightly modified Mustang Cobra could give you all the performance you'd get in that car and save a few buck while you're at it. Plus the Mazda rx8 will be able to drift a corner w/ 4 people in it, can the 'vette do that?

    chris

    EDIT: Oh you have a camaro, not a 'vette. My coworker called his Camaro the biggest piece of crap he has ever driven. Couldn't see past the hood, the chassis was poorly designed, and he said it was only fun in a strait line because cornering fast was crazy and dangerous. I am just repeating what that former owner said. Not my own views.
    Last edited by fengshui; 07-02-2003 at 08:39 AM.
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  10. #54
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Hey drizze, run this guy's camaro in your SRT-4 and show him just how dated the f-body is.

    I bet his four banger and lighter weight could take you in a strait line, since that is all most of the F-body owners are concerned about.

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  11. #55
    Registered User Simp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Orlando/Atlanta
    Posts
    81
    So are you saying any of these aren't true.
    a. You have eto change your oil more and more precisely. Bad oil + rotary = total engine failure.
    b. It's design makes it extremely difficult to work on.
    c. since it's the only car in the states with that type of engine, replacement parts will be pricey
    d. Only certain mechanics can work on it, making repairs even pricier.

    I used to want an RX-7, did some research and decided against it. I agree alot of problems were due to heat soack and the pressure exerted on the engine by boost, but until I see long lasting, reliable RX-8s, im gonna question it. I will say the wankel is an awesome engine design. I love it. Piston engines have so much power loss due to the "4 stroke cycle" that rotarys just dont have. I like the theory, not so much the practice.

    As for the C5 comments, talk about hearsay. I gurantee you C5s can drift. I've never seen it done, but I'm sure it's possible. All drifting requires is a good driver. RWD helps as does AWD. I've seen vids of Supras drifting. They have IRS, like the Vette. High HP, lke the Vette. Oh, and Vettes are about 300 lbs lighter, but you're right, Vettes probably can't drift

    And as for a roadcourse, I'd take a C5 over an RX-8 anyday. C'mon now. Honestly. It'd take alot of turns for the RX-8 to make up the insane HP and TQ difference. And its not like Vettes arent good handling cars.

    As for the Z and G35C comments, stop mag racing.
    2000 LS1 Camaro M6

  12. #56
    Registered User Simp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Orlando/Atlanta
    Posts
    81
    Originally posted by fengshui
    Hey drizze, run this guy's camaro in your SRT-4 and show him just how dated the f-body is.

    I bet his four banger and lighter weight could take you in a strait line, since that is all most of the F-body owners are concerned about.

    chris
    I sure would hope his modded car would take my stock car. If it couldn't thats just sad. Even so I think I'd take him if we both ran DR's, but thats just me.

    If the F-body is so "dated" why don't you volunteer to race instead of asking a different car of the same year as yours? Your lighter weight and four banger couldn't take me?
    2000 LS1 Camaro M6

  13. #57
    Ike
    Ike is offline
    Registered User Ike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi.
    Posts
    764
    I think some people read to many magazines. Wait til you freaking drive the car!

  14. #58
    Moderator fengshui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,816
    Originally posted by Simp
    I sure would hope his modded car would take my stock car. If it couldn't thats just sad. Even so I think I'd take him if we both ran DR's, but thats just me.

    If the F-body is so "dated" why don't you volunteer to race instead of asking a different car of the same year as yours? Your lighter weight and four banger couldn't take me?
    Ugh. Its not that point. People aren't getting the RX-8 or the WRX to go FAST in a strait line. But people buy the FBodies and Stangs to do just that. The RX-8 "SHOULD" provide ride on rails handling for the amount they are charging. And to this date, all the magazine reviewer have said as much, and have agreed with you that they are down on torque. But what do you expect of a 1.3L engine with only 3 moving parts? The luxury and refinement of the car is going to be great as well. I'd say it will be around corvette luxury, but that costs like $20K more. So for a true 4 door, 4 seat, nimble handling sports cars, Mazda could be very successful at pulling it off.

    And incidentally the STi last time I checked was laying down some four banger 1/4 mile justice on Camaros, 'Vettes, and Lightnings. Do a search for the video that was posted. I have nothing against your car, but just the HP mentality.

    Now that I grabbed some lunch, I'm not so grouchy. And I really can't wait to testdrive it. If it sucks and dissapoints me, well I'll just have to throw a VF22 in my car and lay down some four banger justice myself.

    chris
    Moderator: Retired
    2002 Subaru Impreza WRX Sedan 5MT - Road Rally - Best 1/4mi: 13.954 @ 97.36mph (3448 lbs)
    2001 Mazda Miata 5MT - AutoX #99 (NNJ Region SCCA 2005 CStock Champion)
    1988 BMW 325 (2.7L "i" conversion) Sedan 5MT - Daily Driver (AutoX soon!)
    "If you can't drive this car fast you can't drive fast." --British Magazine, CAR, on the WRX

  15. #59
    Registered User 2001S4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    845
    Originally posted by Simp
    N/A rotaries are, by nature, torqueless wonders (see: Honda).
    umm, when did Honda go with a rotary?

    Nobody believes me when I tell them my car gets decent mileage. "It's a 5.7l dude" Yeah, but because I have gobs of torque, I can shift a hair above idle, usually around 1500rpms, around town and its not unbarably slow. My car gets better gas mileage than an S2000.
    What is the point of buying a Camaro with a powerful V8 if you are concerned with mileage? Are you really concerned or just pointing out the mpg compared to an s2000. I am just guessing from the plenty of torque to allow you to shift at low rpms comment that you are really concerned

  16. #60
    Registered User Shard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    4,554
    Originally posted by 2001S4
    umm, when did Honda go with a rotary?
    He is saying they are torqueless just like honda engines.

    And as for this insanely silly argument you guys have here i'll say my 2 cents.

    My friend has an RX-8 coming in on monday or tuesday, i'll be sure to give you guys a full review upon driving it . I for one, love the rotary engine, i think it is a stellar design.

    I wouldn't want an RX-8 because it doesn't suit me, if im going to have a sports car, i'm going to have a sports car, if i'm getting a 4-seater, i think you know what car i choose. I think it's styling is great, however, i do think the lack of torque leaves something to be desired, i can't wait to see the aftermarket.

    I also think the car is priced a tad too high, easily a 30K car, i don't believe it's worth all of that; however, to some it will be. There is no doubt in my mind it will handle like a dream, but thats only a part of what makes a great car great.

    I hope the car does well, and the wankel doesn't die, as i love it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •