Sharper Mazda RX-8 heralds new flagship

Carbon wrote:

> I thought the 300zx turbo was bitchin' when it came out. It was a lot of
> car, at the time.

Yes, I drove a '92 Turbo with a few power mods one time. Very fast car,
and I liked how it looked too, especially the front end.

Pat

It's amazing how 'love-it / hate-it the RX-8 styling is. I consider myself a
student of car design and I completely disagree with Grant on the disjointed
styling. I think it's a very cohesive / modern design. To me, the 350Z isn't
bad looking by any means but it's just OK and from some angles it looks
incredibly heavy which you'd probably agree never afflicts the RX-8.

The 'updated' RX-8 is a disaster to my eyes. They are just slapping on
corporate look alike pieces and tacky scoops and grills. To me it's sad that
they've let the car die on the vine and now they are going to shoot it in
the proverbial head. It won't be a pretty death. The car needs torque and
improved fuel mileage, both in a pretty big way. The looks didn't need
updating. Seriously, anybody who hated it before will still hate it and
anybody who thought it was beautiful will hate that they changed it just for
the sake of change and 'corporate look'. That sucks!

Chris
99BBB

"Grant Edwards" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2008-03-26, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a
>> mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping
>> 159 ft-lbs. of torque, is just pitiful.
>
> And it's ugly too! IMO, the RX-8 is a disjointed collection of
> random details with no overall style. It's all vents and
> creases and bulges and slots and crap.
>
> The 350Z doesn't look bad at all -- except for those door
> handles...
>
> --
> Grant

Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's
history! It was 1979 IIRC.

The twin turbo and it's NA stablemate were great and great looking but along
with their competition just got too pricey!

Chris
99BBB

"pws" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47eb4060$0$12589$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Carbon wrote:
>
>> I thought the 300zx turbo was bitchin' when it came out. It was a lot of
>> car, at the time.
>
> Yes, I drove a '92 Turbo with a few power mods one time. Very fast car,
> and I liked how it looked too, especially the front end.
>
> Pat

Do you think they could get that darn Speed-3 turbo in there?! That would be
great. Actually, it would totally screw with Mazda tradition so, it ain't
going to happen. Actually, if they can de-tune it for the Speed-3 they could
turn up the thrust for a Speed-8! And give it the same reliable power it has
in the CX-7 for the standard RX-8. Again, certain things Mazda just isn't
going to screw with so we're wasting our breath!

cd
99BBB

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:723d5f5c-5e2b-457f-b29b-(E-Mail Removed)...
On Mar 26, 9:20 am, Grant Edwards <gra...@visi.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-26, eara...@spymac.com <eara...@spymac.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to argue that the Wankel engine isn't pretty cool as a
> > mechanical curiosity, but 16/22 mpg on a 3050 lb. car, with a whopping
> > 159 ft-lbs. of torque, is just pitiful.
>
> And it's ugly too! IMO, the RX-8 is a disjointed collection of
> random details with no overall style. It's all vents and
> creases and bulges and slots and crap.

Definitely it ain't a smooth beauty, but I think it's kind of cool in
its own way, at least in dark blue or silver (maybe its appearance in
X-Men is influencing me).

The reason I sounded a bit harsh is that I actually really wanted to
like this car. It seemed to promise world-class handling and (unlike
our beloved Miatae) respectable speed, along with 4-seat practicality
and a dose of distinctiveness, for <=30K.

I can't help but wonder if any of a number of other engines might
raise its gas mileage from bad to at least mediocre, without
sacrificing its essential character and performance. I guess it might
not be an RX-8 anymore, but it might be a heckuva car.

Eric

Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's
> history! It was 1979 IIRC.

No, they switched over to the 280ZX until 1983, basically a heavier and
more gaudy 280Z, then released the 300ZX.
That car was quite horrific in looks and performance. :-)

> The twin turbo and it's NA stablemate were great and great looking but along
> with their competition just got too pricey!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB

Yeah, they were around $30,000, and that was back in 1991. The owner of
the one that I drove went with a used NA Miata, which inspired me to buy
my own after I drove it.
The 300ZX was fun, but the inexpensive and low-power Miata was the more
fun car to drive. Surprising at the time, fully understandable now.

A local shop owner had a 1991 300ZX running over 600 hp, but I never got
a ride in that one.

Pat

OMG, you're absolutely correct. I got the year right but forgot it remained
2.8 liters when it first went 'luxo' in 1979! That's the one I think was the
low point.

Chris
99BBB

"pws" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47ec1b95$0$4966$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
>> Don't forget that the first 300ZX was the biggest disaster in the model's
>> history! It was 1979 IIRC.
>
> No, they switched over to the 280ZX until 1983, basically a heavier and
> more gaudy 280Z, then released the 300ZX.
> That car was quite horrific in looks and performance. :-)
>
>> The twin turbo and it's NA stablemate were great and great looking but
>> along with their competition just got too pricey!
>>
>> Chris
>> 99BBB
>
> Yeah, they were around $30,000, and that was back in 1991. The owner of
> the one that I drove went with a used NA Miata, which inspired me to buy
> my own after I drove it.
> The 300ZX was fun, but the inexpensive and low-power Miata was the more
> fun car to drive. Surprising at the time, fully understandable now.
>
> A local shop owner had a 1991 300ZX running over 600 hp, but I never got a
> ride in that one.
>
> Pat
>
>