Fifth Gear: Latest Nissan 350Z vs Latest Mazda RX-8 (August 18th, 2008)
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
From: Buena Park
Originally Posted by WhiteNoiz
Way to be a complete dick.
OP, thanks for sharing, I didn't catch that because I dont have cable, nor do I watch TV. I find the reviews interesting, especially if they're new.
OP, thanks for sharing, I didn't catch that because I dont have cable, nor do I watch TV. I find the reviews interesting, especially if they're new.
Originally Posted by KManZ
Ok, silly question here, but why is there a HP difference between our US Zed and the British Zed? 306hp vs. 309bhp? Noticed that Tiff says "brake horsepower", whereas we say just "horsepower".
http://autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Horsepower
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Northern, VA
The RX-8 is a good car. It isn't reliable as Nissan's bulletproof engines but man is that rotary smooth as butter. Have any of you driven one? I swear it's engine is buttery smooth all the way to 9k RPM's. Sure an S2K also revvs to 9k but it sounds like it's about to explode/die.
The RX-8 shouldn't be bashed on for just those things though (reliability mostly) because it's a great performer on the track and it has technically 4 doors and it's roomy.
It's really a niche car--it only appeals to a certain amount of people.
It's also crazy how a lot of 04' RX-8's are priced below a base Honda Civic. That 18mpg really kills it though
The RX-8 shouldn't be bashed on for just those things though (reliability mostly) because it's a great performer on the track and it has technically 4 doors and it's roomy.
It's really a niche car--it only appeals to a certain amount of people.
It's also crazy how a lot of 04' RX-8's are priced below a base Honda Civic. That 18mpg really kills it though
Originally Posted by h2kSPiG
If Mazda was smart they would take their best engine, 2.3L turbo, and put it in their "best" sports car, the RX-8. That would be a much more reliable and all around better car.
The Z was meant to the a cheap "jack of all trades". Handle pretty well, have good power, still be reasonably functional for what it is, but isn't excellent in any one category. Most other cars anywhere near the price range lack one thing or another completely.
The RX-8 may have better utility with its back seat and fold door things, but the engine is not nearly as powerful or reliable as it needs to be. It is just different in its design.
The Z was meant to the a cheap "jack of all trades". Handle pretty well, have good power, still be reasonably functional for what it is, but isn't excellent in any one category. Most other cars anywhere near the price range lack one thing or another completely.
The RX-8 may have better utility with its back seat and fold door things, but the engine is not nearly as powerful or reliable as it needs to be. It is just different in its design.
Now why don't they put the 2.3L turbo in their MX-5? That thing is quite slow as well... that and an more aggressive would actually put it into my "considering to purchase" category. I never considered it because it had little power and still looks too girly in my opinion.
From what i've heard all the reliability issues have been sorted out in the latest revision of the engine. I do have a friend who bought an 07 RX-8 new and I think has about 20,000 miles on it with no problems at all. Granted it still needs a few years with no major problems before I would call it reliable, but so far its proved fine. There is a certain technique and mechanical sympathy required to properly maintain the car. Maybe the owners just don't have that and thats why they have reliability issues.
Anyway the RX-8 isn't that horribly slow... the only reason it loses so many drag races is because people don't know how to launch it properly. Lots of people don't know how to launch properly in any car. You don't need that skill nearly as much in a car like the 350Z, or a Corvette, because it has plenty of torque to get out of it.
Originally Posted by Blk03G35
RX8 would be so sweet with a factory turbo
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: California
I disagree with the 2.3l turbo comment, the RX should always have a rotary engine or else it should go under a different name.
What Mazda should do is offer their 2.0l 3 rotor engine for the R3 package RX8, that would offer much more power while still maintaining the RX's signature rotary platform.
What Mazda should do is offer their 2.0l 3 rotor engine for the R3 package RX8, that would offer much more power while still maintaining the RX's signature rotary platform.
The version of the 1.3L rotary that is in the RX-8 is a very good motor. The rotary got it bad rep (deserved) from the turbo charged motors in the 2nd gen, and the 3rd gen twin turbos. A boosted rotary is an amazing experience, but the price you pay in reliability is pretty high. The 3rd Gen RX-7 had problem in the stock configuration with over heating. That is fixable, but many have modded the RX-7 to the point of being very unreliable. An NA rotary OTOH can last for a couple hundred thousand miles if it is maintained properly.
The rotary is an amazing engine to drive hard. Keep in mind that the RX-8 has a 1.3L engine. The Z is a 3.5L V6. Even given this disparity RX-8 can hold it's own really well and does it with a much lighter engine.
A rotary will never be a fuel efficient engine. Too bad.
Before trashing a rotary, try driving it sometime or watch how well a well driven RX-8 goes through an auto-x course.
Or better yet, buy my '94 RX-7 Touring so I can buy a Z. I'm ready to settle for less driving thrill, for more creature comforts, better reliability, and better gas mileage.
Zoom Zoom....
The rotary is an amazing engine to drive hard. Keep in mind that the RX-8 has a 1.3L engine. The Z is a 3.5L V6. Even given this disparity RX-8 can hold it's own really well and does it with a much lighter engine.
A rotary will never be a fuel efficient engine. Too bad.
Before trashing a rotary, try driving it sometime or watch how well a well driven RX-8 goes through an auto-x course.
Or better yet, buy my '94 RX-7 Touring so I can buy a Z. I'm ready to settle for less driving thrill, for more creature comforts, better reliability, and better gas mileage.
Zoom Zoom....
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
From: Buena Park
Originally Posted by gregom
Now why don't they put the 2.3L turbo in their MX-5? That thing is quite slow as well... that and an more aggressive would actually put it into my "considering to purchase" category.
...270hp + 2500lbs ftw
Thats what i hate about Mazda..great handling and shifters...low weight... and then they KILL it with weak engines......
Originally Posted by Faboo
Miata with the 2.3l turbo and stiffer suspension would own everthing this side of a boxster s and maybe that as well ...270hp + 2500lbs ftw
Thats what i hate about Mazda..great handling and shifters...low weight... and then they KILL it with weak engines......
...270hp + 2500lbs ftw Thats what i hate about Mazda..great handling and shifters...low weight... and then they KILL it with weak engines......
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
From: Buena Park
Originally Posted by Fairly Z
. . . So, the British Z has 309 HP to the wheels? No way. He's talking about 309 horses at the flywheel, no?
last time i remember a companies HP claim was at the wheels was the 03/04 mustang cobra.....ford said 390 horses...and they ended up dynoing at around 375-380whp.....so they actually had closer to 415-425hp
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: new york
I thought the mazdaspeed3 was 263hp? Either way, i heard those cars are pretty quick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDyl6s9UYPQi dont know if the Z wasnt really getting on the gas or that car keeps up with the Z, it doesnt say if the mazda is stock but i figured i'd throw it up here. not gonna lie it kinda makes me sick lol
