July 29, 2003

Why the RX-8 Sucks and Maybe Glenn Reynolds Will Link To Me

Glenn "the blender" Reynolds is looking at a mazda rx-8. Having just recently bought a car myself, I'm going to tell you all why the mazda rx-8 is a piece of shit and why Glenn should buy a Subaru Impreza sTi instead.

The rx-8 is not actually a piece of shit. It's a nice car. It's got a solid rotary engine and its a quality overall machine. The problem is that when you compare it to the Subaru Impreza sTi it just doesn't stack up.

Three words... All Wheel Drive

While the rx-8 is a rear wheel drive vehicle, which is nice considering how many car manufacturers have caved and made even their sportscars front wheel drive standard, mazda kept it real with the rear wheel drive. RWD is cute off the line and all, but it doesn't compare to the overall driving experience an AWD vehicle has to offer. RWD creates oversteer on turns, which makes one more prone to spinning out or fishtailing when accelerating around bends. AWD on the other hand, drags the car back into line when accelerating on turns, creating a minor understeer, but sticking to the road rather nicely overall and allowing you to take turns at greater speeds with better control. RWD is also more prone to slip and spin the tires, which is fun for a little bit, but it just means you sit there and watch the AWD vehicle next to you chirp and take off as you sit there making a cloud out of your tires.

The engine - Like i said, the mazda has a nice rotary 1.3 liter engine. Its a solid machine. The Impreza sTi has a 1.8liter turbocharged engine, which produces matching 247 horsepower. This means that the mazda will pull ahead in the low rpm, which is offset by the AWD of the impreza, and then once you break the 4000 RPM line the subaru takes off and leaves the mazda in the dust. If you wanna get a little bit nutty, which i doubt mr. reynolds does, you can go for the 2.5 rs impreza and drop in a twin turbo yourself. The 2.5RS has an engine straight from a porsche boxter, just without the twin turbo. Drop in the twin turbo and you'll leave the sTi and the rx-8 at the line like you were lined up next to your mom's 83 buick roadmaster.

The appearance - The rx-8 looks like an audi on acid. Its rounded off waay too much, just like the Nissan 350z. It really looks like a hyundai tiberon, which is also a nice car, but after spending 30 grand do you really want people to say "hey, that looks just like my Hyundai!"? Me neither. The subaru is a bit more boxy, and looks more like a car than a space ship. It also has a really cool air intake on the front hood, giving it a bit of flavor. Throw a spoiler on there and you have one mean looking machine.

The performance - Everyone wants a fast car, but you also have to be realistic. You're gonna be driving this thing around in the snow, the rain, on poorly paved roads. AWD is superior to RWD in all of these situations. RWD vehicles are meant to be driven on flat, freshly paved surfaces. Now I don't know where Glenn lives, but nowhere around here is anything like that, except for the race track out in riverhead. It's nice to be able to go just as fast when its raining as when its dry, and not have to worry about pushing your car out of the parking lot come winter.

The Impreza sTi has about the same amount of room in the interior as the rx-8, and has a real sporty feel to it. It almost looks like a cockpit inside. They run around the same price, and have about the same warranties. Subaru has a much better reputation for holding out over time though, as mazda's tend to fall apart after 6 or 7 years and develop electrical problems(at least in my experience) which are expensive to fix and annoying to ignore. Both companies parts are on the expensive side, so its pretty much a toss up as far as replacement costs go.

If you want a really fast car, you can also look at the Audi 1.8TT. The setback is that the audi is a two-seater, so no room in there for the insta-daughter. But i think mr. Reynolds should take a good long look at the Subaru Impreza sTi before he signs the papers for the RX-8. I think he, and anyone else looking for this type of vehicle, will be pleasantly surprised at all that subaru has to offer.

Posted by John at July 29, 2003 05:24 PM
Comments

You're not ready for the big leagues rookie.

Posted by: glenn at July 29, 2003 06:34 PM

Did you get to the gym yet, fatty mcgee?

Posted by: Collins at July 29, 2003 07:55 PM

Yes, I went to the gym yesterday.

Posted by: glenn at July 30, 2003 10:00 AM

Damnit, now I have to stop harassing you. You've ruined my day.

Posted by: Collins at July 30, 2003 10:18 AM

That was well-reasoned and articulate. Who wrote it for you?

Posted by: Ted Phipps at July 30, 2003 10:33 AM

Oops, I meant:

Dear Scabby,
Who wrote that for you?

Posted by: Ted Phipps at July 30, 2003 10:34 AM

God I hate you ted.

Posted by: Collins at July 31, 2003 12:41 PM

You are an idiot. The 350Z is way better then any car you have named. Also the RX-8 has NO torque and only 235hp... Mazda messed up and released incorrect information about the RX-8's hp numbers. AWD cars are nice if your are a pussy and you don't know how to drive a real car (RWD). Get a clue you ass ranger, theres a reason that F1 cars, NASCARS, and most Lemans cars are RWD... Because you lose soooo much HP to the tranny in an AWD car... Those STi's have great 0-60 times and 1/4 miles times, but after 100 mph, no more power. AWD system also add huge amounts of weight to a car, for every 100lbs you lose at least 1tenth of a second. idiot. bring on your STi's and EVO's I'll be waiting in my RWD Z car to smoke your POS.

Posted by: Doug at August 28, 2003 10:26 AM

The 350z is better than a Evo or WRX!?!?!? Care to elaborate on that???

Posted by: Hmmmm at September 25, 2003 08:11 PM

AWD is cute for paranoid soccer moms and actual rally racing, but basically it adds alot of weight and complexity that is beaten by a little skill and RWD. And if that great Subaru is even slower off the line than the torqueless Rx-8, it's a real dog. How many gears have you hit 4000 rpm in anyway?

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2003 05:05 PM

AWD is cute for paranoid soccer moms and actual rally racing, but basically it adds alot of weight and complexity that is beaten by a little skill and RWD. And if that great Subaru is even slower off the line than the torqueless Rx-8, it's a real dog. How many gears have you hit 4000 rpm in anyway?

Posted by: Joe at October 22, 2003 05:05 PM

Just a little spec clarification. The 04 impreza sti isn't a 1.8 or even a 2.0 (like the wrx) it's a 2.5 dohc. It also has been dyno'd at 300-310 hp at flywheel and 238ish to all four wheels.

350z is cool too but I prefer 4 doors (maxima with 3.5s)

Posted by: Steven at November 12, 2003 10:43 PM

You are all a bunch of idiots. RICE sucks. Get an SS.

Posted by: ryan at November 19, 2003 08:55 PM

Four letters...

NSX R

The best Japanese car ever made Period!
It's quicker and the handles better than all of them. Mid-engine, Rear-wheel drive is the way to go! Sure it's got less hp and torque but it can sure kick some ass.

Plus it costs more and it's a true exotic car(hand built, all alluminum). And w/ that kinda money you can buy yourself 3 WRXs, 3 Evos, and (3) 350z's.

Also the S2000 can take on a 350z and RX-8. It's been proven. It's quicker, and handles better too. Once again it has less hp, and torque, but it can still kick their asses.


Hey Ryan,
SS stands for Super Shity!.
Too bad they dropped it like a "piece of shit"!


Posted by: unknown poster at November 24, 2003 07:48 PM

The S2000 is nothing more than a riceboy's pipe dream. 156lbs of torque to move a car that weighs 2,800lbs? Yeah that sounds like a good idea.

“As with most high-strung motors, the S2000's engine lacks low-end grunt, so it must be revved madly at launch during acceleration testing. But even with nearly 8000 revs on the tach, our very green (345 miles) test car was unable to break a wheel loose on our grippy test surface, which partly explains our rather lackluster performance: 0 to 60 took us fully 6.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile fell in 15.1 seconds at a more impressive 96 mph.”
-Car And Driver August 1999

“There's just one asterisk to the foregoing. Because it doesn't come to life until its electronic tach hits six grand, the S2000 is extremely tricky to get out of the starting blocks in a major hurry without frying the clutch. Schroeder extracted a 5.8-second sprint to 60 mph by using methods we don't recommend unless you want to be on a first-name basis with your parts man. This car will never shine at the drag strip, but once rolling it's as eager as any other.”
-Car And Driver October 1999

“It only took the S2000 5.8 seconds to reach 60 mph, and it did the quarter mile in 14.2 at 98.1. This compares favorably to 6.3 seconds 0-60 and 14.8 seconds at 91.4 mph for the BMW, and 6.0 seconds 0-60 and 14.5 at 94.6 for the Porsche. The S2000 numbers came after launching at 8000 rpm (producing little tire spin) and shifting at 8300. On one run, we launched and shifted at 5500; the 0-60 time rose to more than 11 seconds.
-Motortrend

Posted by: Rice Sucks at November 30, 2003 05:21 PM

You are all forgetting the one car that outdoes every car you named (other than F1 cars...) That car is the Nissan Skyline GTR R-32/33/34 (esp. R-34 V-spec II) It is AWD, and you cannot EVEN say that it is for paranoid soccer moms. The fastest modified skyline is the HKS drag skyline that puts out around 1600 HP. The fastest street legal skyline (Veilside Combat Skyline) puts out around 1100 HP. Not one of the vehicles you mentioned can boast that (not even your precious SS.) VERY FEW modified Skylines put out anything less that 500 HP.

Posted by: Me at December 12, 2003 03:11 PM

I would have to agree with rice sucks guy. I have driven in both the s2000, the R-8, and the 350z and I have had the honor of riding in the 2003 and 2004 Dodge SRT-4. Both the RX-8 and and the S2000 lack torque severely. They feel like they are not even pushing at all up until the high revs. The 350z is pretty nice and quick, the one I rode in had the great sound system with subs, which was pretty cool. Although all these cars are so expensive, except the SRT-4. The car is seriously not a Neon. Its under 20 grand, and the 2003 does the quater in 13.9 if you get a cat and slicks. The car starts to hit about 3000 rpms all the way up to redline. I'm sorry but the car smokes each of these little "riced-out" cars. My cousin has a 2003 Neon 5spd and I'm afraid to say he hasnt lost a race yet. He beat a 1999 Turbo Civic Si, 3 times, a 2000 Honda Prelude, a 1996 Honda Prelude, and lots of other POS rice cars. The Rx-8 is priced at 26k with the sport auto tranny, and over 30k with the 6 speed tranny. That is outrageous, ever hear of the SCCA? They raced sport compacts back in the late 90's and they raced Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Dodge etc. They (at first) allowed no mods to the cars. Then all the import people complained that the Neon ACR was to fast for them to catch when they are using equal price ranged cars. Finally after months of complaining, the SCCA finally let the imports put mods on their cars, basically what I'm saying is you cant go wrong with a Dodge. Hands down imports suck I own one. I know from experience, not from CHP, CHP is a little thing i like to refer to people who own imports its not real HP its Cock Horse Power, basically all talk but no walk. I'm sorry but the Neons can take 330 at the crank before you have to change the rods. Thats a crapload of horsepower. I forget which magazine I read this in but it said, "When in doubt, buy a Neon." The Neons are the fasest, cheapest, and best buy for the money. And don't tell me that the Neon has a crap engine, b/c its the exact same engine as in the early Mistu Eclipse's. Talk all you want, but I know from experience.

Posted by: Matt at December 15, 2003 09:13 AM

u all are cap i have a rx-8 and i hit 145 on it already i cant say the same for the srt or the impreiza those are crap cars and ive raced an evo and an impriza and bet them both sothey suck

Posted by: marcio at December 23, 2003 02:02 PM

Hey Barton Roberts. Please don't ever post again. You sound like a fucking moron when you talk. Who the hell came up with the idea that all AWD vehicles have no high end speed? The 3000GT VR-4 stock tops out at 160 with gearing high enough to take it over 200 with the proper mods. Don't even argue that the VR-4 is "to heavy" or "it's a heavy POS" With AWD and tall gearing it will smash your 350z.

Posted by: Dave at December 28, 2003 07:15 PM

The 3000GT VR-4 is a boat, it's like 3800lbs. It seems as if Mr. Matt only cares about straight-line performance. The RX-8 is a well-balanced car with decent performance and excellent handling. Regardless of how buff you think your Dodge Neon SRT-4 (MOPAR!!) or Camaro SS (UNGHH) is, just wait till you try to have any kind of fun in this car other than depressing the gas pedal and shifting at the proper RPMs. Turn a corner, for instance. The unsprung weight and 1960's suspension will kill you. If your ego is all that matters and you're seriously interested in smoking your fellow 16 year old highschool-goers, buy a Mustang 5.0 for like $500 and put a blower on it. You will eat $21,000 Neon's for dinner. What you pay $30,000 for in an RX-8 is the fabulous interior and driving position (again, if you only live your life one quarter mile at a time, this is obviously unimportant), excellent balance (50/50... the engine is mounted behind the front axle), the electronically assisted steering (no hydraulic crap), forged aluminium suspension components, body rigidity like a solid block of steel, and a much better driving experience. Although I'd be the first to argue the merits of AWD over RWD, a well-made RWD car almost as stable on dry pavement. The Evo is another choice vehicle, with everything performance-wise that a 350Z and an RX-8 has with AWD. Brutal suspension and a pretty spartan interior though. Remember, you have to drive this car every day.

Posted by: The Man at December 30, 2003 06:24 PM

i wanna know what the hell you people are on. 2004 sti will smoke a dodge srt-4. the srt-4 is ALTERNATIVE TO A STI AND OR WRX. STI 0-60 4.8. AWD IS A BENEIFIT IN THE WINTER. AND THE TRACTION AND LAUNCH IS GREAT. ALSO THE POWER ISNT SPLIT 50/50. rx-8 my ass mazda has to lie to you to sell thier car. ITS NOTHING TO MODIFY A STI GO BUY A STAGE KIT 3 4 GRAND YOUR SITTING ON 500 HP. WHAT DUMBASS WOULD MODIFY A ROTARY ENGINE??? ELABORATE ??? DOMESTIC CARS SUCK EXCEPT GENERAL MOTORS...GO BUY A CONSUMERS GUIDE MAG AND SEE WHAT THEY RECOMEND..SO CALL IT RICE 10 -20 YEARS THATS ALL THERES GONNA BE
THANK YOU

Posted by: john at January 1, 2004 09:44 PM

HELLO, FIRST OF ALL I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I OWN A Z4, I WILL NOT COMPARE THE 2 CARS, I WANT JUST TO SHARE MY IMPRESSIONS ON THE RENESIS ENGINE.
TWO DAYS AGO I WENT TO THE MAZDA DEALER FOR A TEST DRIVE.
THE ENGINE IS SIMPLE AMAZING!!! SWITCHING FROM FIRST GEAR TO SECOND AT 9000RPM WITHOUT RELEASING THE THROTTLE IS A SENSATION THAT NO PISTON ENGINE WITH THE SAME HORSEPOWERS CAN GIVE!!! YOU WILL HAVE THE FEELING OF DRIVING A CAR WITH 300+HP!!! THE M3 FOR COMPARISON IS ALL NOISE AND NO KICK IN THE BUTT, (FOR A 340HP ENGINE OF COURSE).
TORQUE IS EVERYWHERE! ON SIXTH GEAR AT 2000RPM GO FULL THROTTLE AND THE ENGINE WILL PULL LIKE A BULL, IT FEELS LIKE A TURBINE ENGINE!!! FOR COMPARISON A PISTON ENGINE IS COMPLITELY EMPTY AT 1000RPM. MAY BE THE TORQUE IS A LITTLE FLAT, BUT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT THERE.
M3 BEST ENGINE? YES BEFORE THE RENESIS. I WAS REALLY REALLY IMPRESSED BY THIS ENGINE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MAZDA IS THE ONLY MANUFACTURE THAT BUILDS CARS AROUND THE WANKEL. WHAT A SHAME.

Posted by: Z4 at January 5, 2004 01:26 AM

Okay lets see cars I have owned in the past four years, Convertible BMW M3 with SMG, okay but the gearbox sucked, Subaru Impreza WRX, too damn slow and they have a class action lawsuit against them right now for inherent brake and first gear synchro problems, Corvette Z06 (yeah thats the fast one) great car for the money, really fucking fast!!!! But made out of plastic....I also have and Integra LS with a turbo LS/Vtec puching out about 425 to the front wheels, now that car is a lot of fun, my current car though is and WRX STi it's pretty kewl I like the car and the torque and I have spanked RX-8's 350Z's V-8 Mustangs and pretty much anything that lines up to me, the reason I got the STi I had to have something to keep up with my girlfriend since she got an EVO

Posted by: Everybody is a MORON at January 9, 2004 03:07 PM

Naturally the STI makes far more power than the RX8, however the RX8 has a double wishbone front suspension with a multilink rear, and is about 200lbs lighter than the STI, with a much lower center of gravity and better weight distribution, and better polar moment of inertia.

what does this all mean? The RX8 is a superior handling car. It will get through turns quicker.

It is just a matter of priorities. Do you want huge power and nice hanlding? Or huge handling and nice power?

Both cars are great.

Posted by: Jack Mott at July 23, 2004 05:00 PM

The Neon is pure junk. The engine is the same P.O.S. that they use in the Dodge Caravan back in the day. What about looks, the Neon is ugly as hell, sure it's fast but looks like complete crap. The 350z and s2000 and STI are very good looking cars. I think srt-4 is for nerdy Mopar losers. If these nerds are trying to get laid dont they know that girls dont care if your "nanny car" can do 13's in the quarter mile.

Posted by: hanz at April 23, 2005 02:48 PM

The RX-8 is a great car and it'll fuck your Subaru anyday

Posted by: Sean at May 3, 2005 07:35 PM

Wow. Impressive. Subaru WRX STi? Shows how lazy some people are. What ever happened to making a car from scratch? Buying a "piece of shit" stock car and modifying it to make it better. I don't want some factory installed shit on my car. If they don't have what i want, i either build it or buy it. And plus...if the RX-8 is such a piece of shit car, why did it get such "terrible" reviews in consumer reports? No, I see how it is. You assholes in some stupid fucking forum are more knowledgeable than consumer reports. If the RX-8 sucked, it wouldn't exist.

Posted by: ubersoldatx2003 at May 20, 2005 03:19 PM

yall are both gay...since when did the sti have a 1.8 liter dumbass...and the rx8 is the gayest car next to the eclipse and rsx

Posted by: will at June 1, 2005 07:54 PM

hyundai tiburon will own all ur fucking asses

Posted by: James at June 19, 2005 09:36 PM

'cept the WRX is ugly. The RX-8 is nice, and has class.

Posted by: Hyper at June 29, 2005 01:21 AM

poop

Posted by: dumbass at July 12, 2005 05:52 PM

You guys are all idiots--- my SLR can smoke all of those cars you mentioned. Why don't you guys make some goddamn money and become rich like me so you can play in the big league. Idiots.

Posted by: byron at August 2, 2005 08:23 PM

wrx sti and 350z is the fastest car for your money
srt-4 blows, its tranny blows if you even try to race those beasts

Posted by: gary at August 16, 2005 11:05 PM

http://weddingrings.tblog.com wedding rings wedding rings

Posted by: wedding rings at August 26, 2005 10:45 PM

thats not an air intake on the front hood you SPED, it leads to the intercooler. RX8 will actually lose in the low end since it only has 140 some odd ft-lbs of torque and if you were smart you would know that HP=torque(RPM)/5250

aka, the rx8 revs to shit but has no balls. and stagnant AWD (such is what is on the STi) sucks dick, its 60% FWD and 40% RWD and doesnt fluctuate power at all so basically youll understeer slightly less than a FWD car but cant angle through the turns like you can in RWD.

ALSO 3kgt lose lots of power through their shitty innefficient drivetrain. FWD 3000gt's will ALWAYS win any race vs AWD 3000gts above 60mph since thats where drivetrain loss takes over.

and to the retard humping the rotary engine find a friend that has an rx7 and ask him how much shit has gone wrong with it. the renesis is redesigned but its lacking in balls, aka its slow.

Posted by: youallsuck at September 21, 2005 12:35 PM

I have the pleasure of owning a SRT-4. Some of my previous cars were a 1971 455 HO Trans Am (which I regret selling to this day) and a 1970 340 325 hp Duster (which I still own). My wife had a nice 280 ZX that we had to sell when we had our first child. All great cars, the TA being the best handling one of the bunch. Without question, the SRT-4 is the fastest of the bunch. We recently took it to Gainesville Raceway, home of the Gatornationals, where the car ran a best of 14.2 @ 99 mph. No doubt with a very few minor mods and slicks, this car would easily run in the mid to low 13's. Mopar stage 3 raises the hp to 355 on race gas at the crank, by all reports putting the car into the mid 11's. Not too shabby for a four banger. To put this in perspective here are some 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for some other sports cars:

1970 Chevrolet Corvette 427 6.1 14.3
1998 Ford Mustang Cobra SVT 5.4 14.0
2004 Honda S2000 5.8 14.2
2002 Lexus SC 430 6.2 14.6
1995 Mazda RX-7 R2 5.0 14.0
2004 Mazda RX-8 5.8 14.49 (6 speed)
1995 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4 5.4 13.5
2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 5.1 13.5
1995 Nissan 300ZX Turbo 5.5 13.9
2005 Nissan 350Z 6 Speed 5.8 14.3
1969 Plymouth Road Runner 426 Hemi 5.1 13.5
2005 Pontiac GTO LS2 4.8 13.3
2004 Subaru Impreza WRX STi 5.1 13.8
1997 Toyota Supra Turbo 5.1 13.6
2004 Volkswagon Golf HPA R32


For the money, IMO this car is hard to beat for the fun factor. 30 mpg on the highway is ok too.

Be cool and be nice guys, believe it or not, there's more to life than fast cars and getting laid.

Russ <><

P.S. What the heck is a VW Golf R32?????

Posted by: Russ at October 2, 2005 09:27 PM

Correction, Stage 3 makes 355 hp at the wheels.

Russ <><

Posted by: Russ at October 2, 2005 09:30 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?