Motor Trend has lost their collective minds!
01-30-2004, 05:19 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: st. louis, mo
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is very odd the mag did this, and awarded practicality
i drive a MB C32 Amg everyday and have seen quite a few articles
concerning new M3 vs. S4 vs C32, its ****ing rediculous, the C32
loses everytime, it is a sports car, but very mucha luxury car also
and is more practical, is so much fun to drive, and itas a ****ing
beast at 349hp stock
i drive a MB C32 Amg everyday and have seen quite a few articles
concerning new M3 vs. S4 vs C32, its ****ing rediculous, the C32
loses everytime, it is a sports car, but very mucha luxury car also
and is more practical, is so much fun to drive, and itas a ****ing
beast at 349hp stock
Last edited by RJH2125; 01-30-2004 at 05:22 PM.
01-30-2004, 06:15 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Objectively speaking, the Z is brawnier, has more power, and understeers. The RX-8 is lighter feeling, is much smoother and "revvier", and has very neutral handling. The Z feels like a muscle car engine in a sports car chassis. The RX-8 feels like a more unified design. That being said, hey're both great vehicles.
The RX-8 has a lot less NVH. It has a wailing smooth shriek to its sound and a relatively quiet cabin.
The Z is loud - too loud inside. The Z's exhaust sounds great but the engine's mechanical noises sound like it was taken out of a truck. Sorry, but the 3.5 V6 does not make beautiful sounds. But, it does make a ton of power, from idle on up.
I think most Z drivers value brute force over balance. The 8 appeals to the driver who isn't interested in racing - they drive for themselves and value balance and flickability. They're both great cars - just for different drivers.
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
And, that's why, though the Z really impressed me, I'm leaning towards an RX-8 or an IS300 for my next car. I'll always appreciate the hairy-chested character of the Z, but I don't think I'd be happy with one in the long run.
FYI, my previous cars: '84 RX-7 GSL-SE, '90 Civic Si, '88 5.0 Sedan, '94 Integra GS-R, '88 MR2, '85 944, '98 F-150, '94 BMW 325is...
I learned to drive when I was 12 years old. My dad put me in his lap and and taught to drive in a '71 Datsun 510 4MT - one of the all-time neat cars... it was orange with a black vinyl top, a BRE front spoiler w/ fog lights, and a Cherry Bomb exhaust.
One day I'll have another 510....
My point: there are some valid reasons why, though it has no where near the low end torque of the Z, the 8 gets great reviews and wins some of the comparo's with the Z.
Thirty years ago, American red necks swore by their small blocks and couldn't understand the appeal of a MGB, Fiat Sport Spider, or Porsche 911 2.4. They said those cars had no where near the power of a V8 - how could they be fun?
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
The RX-8 has a lot less NVH. It has a wailing smooth shriek to its sound and a relatively quiet cabin.
The Z is loud - too loud inside. The Z's exhaust sounds great but the engine's mechanical noises sound like it was taken out of a truck. Sorry, but the 3.5 V6 does not make beautiful sounds. But, it does make a ton of power, from idle on up.
I think most Z drivers value brute force over balance. The 8 appeals to the driver who isn't interested in racing - they drive for themselves and value balance and flickability. They're both great cars - just for different drivers.
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
And, that's why, though the Z really impressed me, I'm leaning towards an RX-8 or an IS300 for my next car. I'll always appreciate the hairy-chested character of the Z, but I don't think I'd be happy with one in the long run.
FYI, my previous cars: '84 RX-7 GSL-SE, '90 Civic Si, '88 5.0 Sedan, '94 Integra GS-R, '88 MR2, '85 944, '98 F-150, '94 BMW 325is...
I learned to drive when I was 12 years old. My dad put me in his lap and and taught to drive in a '71 Datsun 510 4MT - one of the all-time neat cars... it was orange with a black vinyl top, a BRE front spoiler w/ fog lights, and a Cherry Bomb exhaust.
One day I'll have another 510....
My point: there are some valid reasons why, though it has no where near the low end torque of the Z, the 8 gets great reviews and wins some of the comparo's with the Z.
Thirty years ago, American red necks swore by their small blocks and couldn't understand the appeal of a MGB, Fiat Sport Spider, or Porsche 911 2.4. They said those cars had no where near the power of a V8 - how could they be fun?
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
01-30-2004, 07:34 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would think that "sport" criteria of power, handling, and performance would carry more weight than luxury features and room for 4 adults. I'm sorry, I don't get it either. If the point is to evaluate the best sport coupe, the sport should be the defining characteristic. I wonder how often an RX-8 actually carries 4 adults. If I'm looking for performance, I care less about how many OTHER adults fit comfortably. It is all about me at that time. Oh well, doesn't matter what they print; I've already voted with my wallet!
01-30-2004, 09:11 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the Z doesn't have any more NVH than a '95 honda prelude... and less than an intergra. and sure a sports car can be quit but what's the fun in that? I mean just like being able to "feel the road" with a sports car. you also want to hear the engine so you know how the car/engine is performing. beside it's a sport car which mean they should rate accroding to how they performance first then pracitality next.
01-30-2004, 09:58 PM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the "musclecar" comparison?
Do you Z owners feel like the Z is a musclecar? MT seemed to think so! Is it really all about the straight line? How easy is it to correct the understeer and make the car feel lighter?
01-30-2004, 10:18 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it feels a lot more like a musclecar than I had anticipated. The first time I drove one, it really suprised me how throaty the exhaust sounded, and shifter vibration really threw me. It is certainly a lot different than my 300ZX, that's for sure. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it does feel a little more crude than I had expected. It's by no means like driving a TA or a Camaro, so I certainly wouldn't classify it as a musclecar.
01-31-2004, 05:31 AM
#27
The Z is classed in the top class GS of Grand Am Cup racing. The RX8 is classed in the second tier ST. The Z runs against Porsche 996. Mustang Cobras, Firebirds, A4 & M3's. The RX8 is up against the Z4, RSX, Intergra, etc. Performance Nissans 350Z finished 3rd overall behind 2 996's at Daytona yesterday! BJ's (aka dwnshift) Z finished 7th! Great start for the Z this year!
01-31-2004, 09:25 AM
#29
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by BasenjiGuy
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
I've driven a friend's RX-8 a couple times and frankly I wasn't impressed with the car in any way.
01-31-2004, 10:06 AM
#30
I agree that $$$ has to do with it, but not advertising, the cost of the cars. There is a difference between $28K and $35K, after all.
I also agree that mentioning "cargo space" on this comparison is idiotic. I didn't buy my Z for cargo, I knew it from the start, and I have no expectations whatsoever. If this is an issue for the buyer, you are looking at the wrong class of cars. It is one of the main reasons I steer some friends towards the G35.
I think we all agree the S2K belongs on third place, no?? :-)
I also agree that mentioning "cargo space" on this comparison is idiotic. I didn't buy my Z for cargo, I knew it from the start, and I have no expectations whatsoever. If this is an issue for the buyer, you are looking at the wrong class of cars. It is one of the main reasons I steer some friends towards the G35.
I think we all agree the S2K belongs on third place, no?? :-)
01-31-2004, 07:49 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Lawrenceville Ga
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol...no. I do not think the S2k should be last.
lets analyze this:
They claim the RX-8 is the cheapest. They fail to note that the car is the only one without Xenon Headlights. Add 1200 for the sport package, which brings the total to $28,400.
Then, why does the S2k have XM Radio installed??? Take 550 off, which brings the total to $33,290. Then, the S2k is the only car with leather in this comparison. Take a 1000 off (hypothetically). Also, note that the S2k is the only one with some form of air from above. If we want to leather and a sunroof to the RX-8, the price balloons to $31,100. Also note that the only way to get some type of air from above for the 350z is to get the convertable, which would decrease performance and increase price to $34,410, and that's without leather.
Why do I bring this up? b/c MT seems to make the S2k out to be a bad value!!! At $33,290, it is a good deal for the car it is.
Also, although the 350z is victimized for being too rough, note that MT puts the 350z ahead for the motor and for being more livable than the S2k. The S2k is the winner as far as handling and braking goes.
Personally, I think a Performance Model 350z vs. A Touring RX-8 (still no leather but Bose, Sunroof, DSC, Xenons) vs a S2k, no XM would have been the most fair. Among these, everyone has their opinions. For a pure sports car, I would put the S2k first, followed by the 350z, and lastly the RX-8. For an only car, I would agree with MT's results. So I guess averaging the two equally, would result in a 3 way tie, with it being up to the consumer to pick which is more important to them (a sports car or a daily driver). Note, that I am considaring buying one of these to replace my 01 ITR.
lets analyze this:
They claim the RX-8 is the cheapest. They fail to note that the car is the only one without Xenon Headlights. Add 1200 for the sport package, which brings the total to $28,400.
Then, why does the S2k have XM Radio installed??? Take 550 off, which brings the total to $33,290. Then, the S2k is the only car with leather in this comparison. Take a 1000 off (hypothetically). Also, note that the S2k is the only one with some form of air from above. If we want to leather and a sunroof to the RX-8, the price balloons to $31,100. Also note that the only way to get some type of air from above for the 350z is to get the convertable, which would decrease performance and increase price to $34,410, and that's without leather.
Why do I bring this up? b/c MT seems to make the S2k out to be a bad value!!! At $33,290, it is a good deal for the car it is.
Also, although the 350z is victimized for being too rough, note that MT puts the 350z ahead for the motor and for being more livable than the S2k. The S2k is the winner as far as handling and braking goes.
Personally, I think a Performance Model 350z vs. A Touring RX-8 (still no leather but Bose, Sunroof, DSC, Xenons) vs a S2k, no XM would have been the most fair. Among these, everyone has their opinions. For a pure sports car, I would put the S2k first, followed by the 350z, and lastly the RX-8. For an only car, I would agree with MT's results. So I guess averaging the two equally, would result in a 3 way tie, with it being up to the consumer to pick which is more important to them (a sports car or a daily driver). Note, that I am considaring buying one of these to replace my 01 ITR.
01-31-2004, 08:14 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I think this was a great response. He seems to have an unbiased view and i can respect that. I am a lil disappointed at the results but then again im happy to see so many forum members in defense of our 350s.
I don’t find the results as upsetting because I like to think that of the 6 billion ppl on this planet in some way could be all categorized to best fit one of these 3 sports cars, and it just so happens that the ppl who wrote this particular article at MT where looking for characteristics more attuned to the RX 8 and not the Z.
I don’t find the results as upsetting because I like to think that of the 6 billion ppl on this planet in some way could be all categorized to best fit one of these 3 sports cars, and it just so happens that the ppl who wrote this particular article at MT where looking for characteristics more attuned to the RX 8 and not the Z.
Originally posted by BasenjiGuy
Objectively speaking, the Z is brawnier, has more power, and understeers. The RX-8 is lighter feeling, is much smoother and "revvier", and has very neutral handling. The Z feels like a muscle car engine in a sports car chassis. The RX-8 feels like a more unified design. That being said, hey're both great vehicles.
The RX-8 has a lot less NVH. It has a wailing smooth shriek to its sound and a relatively quiet cabin.
The Z is loud - too loud inside. The Z's exhaust sounds great but the engine's mechanical noises sound like it was taken out of a truck. Sorry, but the 3.5 V6 does not make beautiful sounds. But, it does make a ton of power, from idle on up.
I think most Z drivers value brute force over balance. The 8 appeals to the driver who isn't interested in racing - they drive for themselves and value balance and flickability. They're both great cars - just for different drivers.
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
And, that's why, though the Z really impressed me, I'm leaning towards an RX-8 or an IS300 for my next car. I'll always appreciate the hairy-chested character of the Z, but I don't think I'd be happy with one in the long run.
FYI, my previous cars: '84 RX-7 GSL-SE, '90 Civic Si, '88 5.0 Sedan, '94 Integra GS-R, '88 MR2, '85 944, '98 F-150, '94 BMW 325is...
I learned to drive when I was 12 years old. My dad put me in his lap and and taught to drive in a '71 Datsun 510 4MT - one of the all-time neat cars... it was orange with a black vinyl top, a BRE front spoiler w/ fog lights, and a Cherry Bomb exhaust.
One day I'll have another 510....
My point: there are some valid reasons why, though it has no where near the low end torque of the Z, the 8 gets great reviews and wins some of the comparo's with the Z.
Thirty years ago, American red necks swore by their small blocks and couldn't understand the appeal of a MGB, Fiat Sport Spider, or Porsche 911 2.4. They said those cars had no where near the power of a V8 - how could they be fun?
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
Objectively speaking, the Z is brawnier, has more power, and understeers. The RX-8 is lighter feeling, is much smoother and "revvier", and has very neutral handling. The Z feels like a muscle car engine in a sports car chassis. The RX-8 feels like a more unified design. That being said, hey're both great vehicles.
The RX-8 has a lot less NVH. It has a wailing smooth shriek to its sound and a relatively quiet cabin.
The Z is loud - too loud inside. The Z's exhaust sounds great but the engine's mechanical noises sound like it was taken out of a truck. Sorry, but the 3.5 V6 does not make beautiful sounds. But, it does make a ton of power, from idle on up.
I think most Z drivers value brute force over balance. The 8 appeals to the driver who isn't interested in racing - they drive for themselves and value balance and flickability. They're both great cars - just for different drivers.
I think a lot of Z drivers miss the point about noise. They say loud cabin noise is part of the sports car experience. I disagree - it doesn't have to be. A quieter cabin can let in just the right amount of, and correct character of, sound, and yet not be fatiguing over a long drive.
Because of this, I don't think the Z is a superior sports car to the RX-8 because of its NVH - it's a compromise. On the other hand, the RX-8 is not going to beat you up on a long haul like a Z will.
I don't know about all of you, but most of the great drives of my 23 year driving experience were long high speed drives covering lots of distance - like Houston TX to Raleigh NC in one day. Or a 6 hour out and back to some twisty mountain roads just for the funk of it. Or driving 1200 cross country miles in one day and going another 1400 the next. That requires a car that's fun to drive but not fatiguing.
And, that's why, though the Z really impressed me, I'm leaning towards an RX-8 or an IS300 for my next car. I'll always appreciate the hairy-chested character of the Z, but I don't think I'd be happy with one in the long run.
FYI, my previous cars: '84 RX-7 GSL-SE, '90 Civic Si, '88 5.0 Sedan, '94 Integra GS-R, '88 MR2, '85 944, '98 F-150, '94 BMW 325is...
I learned to drive when I was 12 years old. My dad put me in his lap and and taught to drive in a '71 Datsun 510 4MT - one of the all-time neat cars... it was orange with a black vinyl top, a BRE front spoiler w/ fog lights, and a Cherry Bomb exhaust.
One day I'll have another 510....
My point: there are some valid reasons why, though it has no where near the low end torque of the Z, the 8 gets great reviews and wins some of the comparo's with the Z.
Thirty years ago, American red necks swore by their small blocks and couldn't understand the appeal of a MGB, Fiat Sport Spider, or Porsche 911 2.4. They said those cars had no where near the power of a V8 - how could they be fun?
The more things change, the more they remain the same...
01-31-2004, 10:01 PM
#33
Turbo Whore
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West suburbs of Chi-town
Posts: 7,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by ITR#203
The S2k is the winner as far as handling and braking goes.
The S2k is the winner as far as handling and braking goes.
Handling is subjective...The Z is a GREAT car to track because of it's very mild understeer...it is extremely balanced around a road course. I tracked my car last summer and was consistantly running 3-4 seconds QUICKER around the track than the two S2Ks there (both with more experienced track drivers than I)...plus each of them spun or did some "agricultural driving" once or twice...while, even pushing the Z to it's limits I never came close to spinning or running off the track.
02-01-2004, 09:17 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ITR#203
Personally, I think a Performance Model 350z vs. A Touring RX-8 (still no leather but Bose, Sunroof, DSC, Xenons) vs a S2k, no XM would have been the most fair. Among these, everyone has their opinions. For a pure sports car, I would put the S2k first, followed by the 350z, and lastly the RX-8. For an only car, I would agree with MT's results. So I guess averaging the two equally, would result in a 3 way tie, with it being up to the consumer to pick which is more important to them (a sports car or a daily driver).
Personally, I think a Performance Model 350z vs. A Touring RX-8 (still no leather but Bose, Sunroof, DSC, Xenons) vs a S2k, no XM would have been the most fair. Among these, everyone has their opinions. For a pure sports car, I would put the S2k first, followed by the 350z, and lastly the RX-8. For an only car, I would agree with MT's results. So I guess averaging the two equally, would result in a 3 way tie, with it being up to the consumer to pick which is more important to them (a sports car or a daily driver).
My 2 cents.
02-01-2004, 09:39 AM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: bay area
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BriGuyMax
Might I point out that the Z beat both cars in the braking tests...
Might I point out that the Z beat both cars in the braking tests...
I drove all 3 cars before I bought my rx-8. My ranking in terms of "fun to drive" was The rx8, S2000 then the 350Z. Thats the same reason the rx-8 has won every single face off it has had.
Edmunds.com 350Z vs Rx-8 Winner : Rx8
drive.au 350Z vs GTO (Monaro) Vs Rx8 winner Rx8
motor trend 35Z vs s2000 vs rx-8 winner Rx8
top gear (I dont even to mention this)
car and driver, G35C vs Cobra vs rx8 rx8 wins.
Its fun to drive and a great sportscar. get over it guys.
02-01-2004, 10:14 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: bay area
Posts: 671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by lbsohk1
2004 Rx-8 GT MT. 16.9 @ 78
great sports car
is that your 1/4 mile stats ? what mods you have ?
2004 Rx-8 GT MT. 16.9 @ 78
great sports car
is that your 1/4 mile stats ? what mods you have ?