supposedly new C&D test 350z vs Shelby GT vs rx8 vs TT. Anyone get C&D yet?

[565]

No one really cares what C&D thinks.

Damn then why do we all read the magazine?

[565]

Nope.

In the last 350Z vs Shelby GT thread there were posts speculating about the acceleration and handling numbers for these two cars when compared head to head.  Well we don't have to speculate any longer for numerical pieces of data like that.

As for opinions,  I'll let you and Nethead duke it out with Jyoder.

[SVT666]

In the last 350Z vs Shelby GT thread there were posts speculating about the acceleration and handling numbers for these two cars when compared head to head.? Well we don't have to speculate any longer for numerical pieces of data like that.

You're right. Wait, where are they?? I haven't seen any yet.

I'll take the Shelby GT, but I don't think anyone is surprised to read that.

EDIT:? Here are acceleration numbers from the article:

1/4 mile
13.7 @ 104 (Z)
13.7 @ 104 (Shelby GT)
14.6 @ 97 (TT)
15.0 @ 93 (RX-8)

0-30mph
2.0 (Z)
2.1 (Shelby GT)
2.2 (RX-8)
2.4 (TT)

0-60mph
5.1 (Shelby GT)
5.2 (Z)
6.0 (TT)
6.5 (RX-8)

0-100mph
12.6 (Z)
12.6 (Shelby GT)
15.4 (TT)
18.0 (RX-8)

LB per BHP
10.9 (Z)
11.1 (Shelby GT)
13.2 (RX-8)
14.8 (TT)

Pretty evenly matched.

[ArchBishop]

blah blah blah I told you so Blah bla blah.

Any info on lap times?

[SVT666]

blah blah blah I told you so Blah bla blah.

Any info on lap times?

That's all I culd find.  Wow the winner was really slow.

[850CSi]

Damn then why do we all read the magazine?

It can be interesting to see what they have to say, but I doubt anyone here really bases their affiliations in magazine racing.

[r0tor]

That's all I culd find.? Wow the winner was really slow.

looks like a time for a RX8 that doesn't have its engine broken in yet

[SVT666]

looks like a time for a RX8 that doesn't have its engine broken in yet

Same with the Shelby GT because stock Mustang GT's with 20 less hp and less then ideal suspension do 5 seconds flat.  It's probably just environmental conditions.  Air density, temperature, and humidity all affect performance.

[Nethead]

You're right. Wait, where are they?? I haven't seen any yet.

I'll take the Shelby GT, but I don't think anyone is surprised to read that.

EDIT:? Here are acceleration numbers from the article:

1/4 mile
13.7 @ 104 (Z)
13.7 @ 104 (Shelby GT)
14.6 @ 97 (TT)
15.0 @ 93 (RX-8)

0-30mph
2.0 (Z)
2.1 (Shelby GT)
2.2 (RX-8)
2.4 (TT)

0-60mph
5.1 (Shelby GT)
5.2 (Z)
6.0 (TT)
6.5 (RX-8)

0-100mph
12.6 (Z)
12.6 (Shelby GT)
15.4 (TT)
18.0 (RX-8)

LB per BHP
10.9 (Z)
11.1 (Shelby GT)
13.2 (RX-8)
14.8 (TT)

Pretty evenly matched.

HEMI666:? Two additional items needed for each vehicle:?

Prices as equipped in the article

Vehicle weights as equipped in the article

Optional:? Tires as equipped in the article (in these forums, it's always the tires...)

It is hard to believe it took the RX-8 18.0 seconds to reach 100 MPH!? That means it took 3 seconds to gain only 7 MPH from the 15.0 seconds it took to reach 93 MPH in the quarter!? Did they mention any problem with this particular RX-8 in the article?? That almost has to be an aberration...

[Eye of the Tiger]

HEMI666:? Two additional items needed for each vehicle:?

Prices as equipped in the article

Vehicle weights as equipped in the article

Optional:? Tires as equipped in the article (in these forums, it's always the tires...)

It is hard to believe it took the RX-8 18.0 seconds to reach 100 MPH!? That means it took three seconds to gain only 7.0 MPH!? Did they mention any problem with this particular RX-8 in the article?? That almost has to be an aberration...

NETDUDE: Does the RX-8 have a column shift? If it does, then I can understand because my truck does the same thing. 0-35 in 2 seconds, then wait 2 seconds to shift, then do 30-65 in about 4 seconds, then wait 1 second to shift, then you're good. But one would think that column shift technology would have advanced far enough in the past thirty-years to quicken things up. Perhaps that engine has NO TORQUE AT ALL and not enough gears in the world to save it? Yeah, that's it. I wrote Mazda and told them to couple a CVT transmission to the rotary engine, and I never got a response. Idiots.

[Raza]

The Z is plenty refined.

It's over sound-deadened, but refined isn't the word I'd use.  It's refined enough to not be as charming as the Mustang.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It's over sound-deadened, but refined isn't the word I'd use.? It's refined enough to not be as charming as the Mustang.

The problem real problems with the 350Z is the doors only close when pushed or pulled, the wheels aren't quite as wheely as they should be, and it's not a Porsche.  :P

[SVT666]

HEMI666:? Two additional items needed for each vehicle:?

Prices as equipped in the article

Vehicle weights as equipped in the article

Optional:? Tires as equipped in the article (in these forums, it's always the tires...)

It is hard to believe it took the RX-8 18.0 seconds to reach 100 MPH!? That means it took 3 seconds to gain only 7 MPH from the 15.0 seconds it took to reach 93 MPH in the quarter!? Did they mention any problem with this particular RX-8 in the article?? That almost has to be an aberration...

The RX-8 may have needed a shift and the rotary isn't exactly a powerhouse.  I don't have the article so I can't give you any more info.  I found that info on another site where someone posted those numbers.

[FordSVT]

HEMI666:? Two additional items needed for each vehicle:?

Prices as equipped in the article

Vehicle weights as equipped in the article

Optional:? Tires as equipped in the article (in these forums, it's always the tires...)

It is hard to believe it took the RX-8 18.0 seconds to reach 100 MPH!? That means it took 3 seconds to gain only 7 MPH from the 15.0 seconds it took to reach 93 MPH in the quarter!? Did they mention any problem with this particular RX-8 in the article?? That almost has to be an aberration...

The RX-8 is definitely no straight-line monster, your average V6 Camry or Altima is quite a bit faster. It's a cornering machine, it's meant to hold high rpms and scream all day. Which is fine, just don't drag race it, you'll lose to all kinds of things. A guy I know who owns one was pissed he couldn't lose his little brother's Cobalt SS. 
-FordSVT-

[r0tor]

The RX-8 is definitely no straight-line monster, your average V6 Camry or Altima is quite a bit faster. It's a cornering machine, it's meant to hold high rpms and scream all day. Which is fine, just don't drag race it, you'll lose to all kinds of things. A guy I know who owns one was pissed he couldn't lose his little brother's Cobalt SS.?
-FordSVT-

funny thing is I have a 2004 Mustang GT on my kill list... and that was when my car was stock  :P

[SVT666]

funny thing is I have a 2004 Mustang GT on my kill list... and that was when my car was stock? :P

Was it an automatic?  If it was a manual, then the guy couldn't drive because it's faster then your car.

[FordSVT]

Was it an automatic?? If it was a manual, then the guy couldn't drive because it's faster then your car.

I agree, a 99-04 Stang runs a 5.4-5.6 second 0-60 and a 13.9-14.1 quarter, that's definitely faster than a RX-8. An automatic GT runs a half second to a full second slower, which is a bit slower than an RX-8. You either raced an auto GT or a manual with an inept driver.

And an S197 isn't even close race, I've dusted more than one RX-8, both from a light and on the highway. My ego forced me to mention that. 
-FordSVT-

[565]

EDIT:? Here are acceleration numbers from the article:

1/4 mile
13.7 @ 104 (Z)
13.7 @ 104 (Shelby GT)


Pretty evenly matched.

So I guess all the talk about the 07 Z's are true, they are significantly faster than the previous Z's.  A 104mph trap speed puts it within striking range of a 335i (around 105mph traps) and probably an E46 M3, not bad for a car that is only rated for 306HP and weighs about as much as an E46 M3.

[Nethead]

NETDUDE: Does the RX-8 have a column shift? If it does, then I can understand because my truck does the same thing. 0-35 in 2 seconds, then wait 2 seconds to shift, then do 30-65 in about 4 seconds, then wait 1 second to shift, then you're good. But one would think that column shift technology would have advanced far enough in the past thirty-years to quicken things up. Perhaps that engine has NO TORQUE AT ALL and not enough gears in the world to save it? Yeah, that's it. I wrote Mazda and told them to couple a CVT transmission to the rotary engine, and I never got a response. Idiots.

NACar:  Thanks for the prompt reply!  The Nethead here does not know what kind of shift the RX-8 has--a column shift would be so out-of-character that I just can't imagine it had one!  My POS Chevy truck had a column shift, and it sucked--but at least that was in synch with the rest of the truck. 

My '66 Bronco had a column shift until I converted it to a floorshift after just one too many incidents with the effin' column shift--to be fair, the column shift's linkage was thirty-four years old by that time so it was long, long overdue for replacement.  I've had nothing but joy from its shifting ever since. 

Mazda should have listened to you about that CVT transmission--you are definitely on to something there!  Start a business converting Mazda rotaries to CVTs and someday, NahDude, you'll OWN that company!!

[r0tor]

I agree, a 99-04 Stang runs a 5.4-5.6 second 0-60 and a 13.9-14.1 quarter, that's definitely faster than a RX-8. An automatic GT runs a half second to a full second slower, which is a bit slower than an RX-8. You either raced an auto GT or a manual with an inept driver.

since i know the owner, it was not an automatic and he knows how to drive (probably better then me at the time too) 

[Raza]

What kind of launch was it?  Did you rev up hard and dump the clutch?

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but as far as the numbers go, the Mustang should have won that.

[SVT666]

What kind of launch was it?? Did you rev up hard and dump the clutch?

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but as far as the numbers go, the Mustang should have won that.

...easily.

[Raza]

...easily.

Especially a stick.  Honestly, though, the automatics were dogs, but with a stick, that thing should have walked it.  My friend's 2002 GT ran a 13.6 on street tires (it was modified, though), but a Mustang GT of that generation, launched well, should get through a quarter mile in the early 14s.   That's noticeably quicker than an RX-8. 

But then again, straightline acceleration isn't what the RX-8 is about, so all is forgiven.

[r0tor]

it was like from 15mph - 90something mph

[The Pirate]

Yeah, my car is way faster than a Mustang GT too.  Nobody believes me, but deep in my heart I know it's true.

[r0tor]

hmm... looks like C&D got a 04 Mustang GT with a slushies through the quarter mile in 15.1 sec .... for this pissing contest i sure hope the god aweful tranny sucked a full second off the time

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2851/low-impact-sports-page3.html

[r0tor]

hmm... looks like C&D got a 04 Mustang GT with a slushies through the quarter mile in 15.1 sec .... for this pissing contest i sure hope the god aweful tranny sucked a full second off the time

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2851/low-impact-sports-page3.html

oh, and the stang lost that comparo too 

[S204STi]

Fuck the TT, it looks nice and all, but it's just an AWD (if quattro) GTI.

Really, it isn't a bad thing, but this segment is a step above the GTI and pocket rockets, and I want something to that level.

I'd hit it.  Since the GTI is one of the best-handling FWD cars around, the TT can't be too bad with AWD.

Nice to know I can keep up with it at least.

[565]

oh, and the stang lost that comparo too?

... it lost to a dodge stratus...

[SVT666]

... it lost to a dodge stratus...

...which is exactly why C&D headquarters should be blown to hell.