ITT: Cars that normies and non-car enthusiasts think are good,

File: evolution-of-the-mazda-mx-5.jpg (359KB, 1600x1432px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1600x1432px

sad part is some car guys fall into the trap too

File: 1424790291259.jpg (73KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 490x333px

>>16385810
>>16385792

They'd be good cars with a small displacement V6. The Renesis is just a shit engine.

File: whooooooo.jpg (903KB, 2803x1917px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 2803x1917px

>>16385820

Why do you hate oil burners?

>>16385819
The case is already closed on the rotary for use in a road car. The only benefits over a traditional piston engine is weight, size and if you live in a cucked country it's small displacement means it costs less to insure. These minor benefits in no fucking way make up for the atrocious fuel economy, them making zero torque, needing constant babying and oil changes, near certainty of engine failure at 80,000 miles etc.

I mean, a Fiesta ST only has 300cc extra displacement and they make more power than a RX8, and have way more torque, 'muh displacement' just isn't even an argument anymore.

>>16385897
The M2 and M240i are both daily drivers for enthusiasts. Everything else they make I can agree with though.

>>16385820

This. The cars themselves are actually pretty good. It's a decently good-looking car (in my opion at least), it has a good chassis that handles well, it has a FR layout with LSD and nearly 50:50 weight distribution, it's pretty comfortable inside, with pretty decent standard equipment, and you can pick them up for dirt cheap these days - you'd struggle to get a car that can go as quick for less. In fact,

I'd even go as far as to say that, if you ignore the tragic fuel economy and the dirty emissions, the Renesis is not a great engine, but it's not terrible either. It's light, it's smooth, it revs high and sounds good. The majority of the problems with RX-8s is that 95% of people who bought one have no idea how to look after a rotary engine.

>>16385897
BMW right now is complete shit, but up until 10 years ago they were the king of fast-ish cars that also looked great.

>>16385874
>atrocious fuel economy
stop being poor its not even bad.

>them making zero torque
sorry it isnt a diesel that only revs to 5000rpm. renesis makes peak torque in low end and has a very broad range... thats what matters.

>needing constant babying
same with all sports cars. its a good idea to beat on a wrx or any other car from a cold start, yes?

>oil changes
3000 mile intervals is nothing bad

>near certainty of engine failure at 80,000 miles etc
try 200k miles if you can into 'constant babying and oil changes'

please educate yoruself, busrider

>>16385935
Please just stop lying to yourself, a car with 210bhp shouldn't have so many huge pitfalls.

File: 1002_s_port_grafu.jpg (48KB, 640x413px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 640x413px

>>16385945
please keep regurgitating conjecture and being a brain dead busrider :^)

>210bhp
pic related (not from mazda), red is stock im sure you can convert ps to hp by yourself

>>16385874
>I mean, a Fiesta ST only has 300cc extra displacement and they make more power than a RX8, and have way more torque

RX-8s have over 210-235hp, which is definitely much more than a Fiesta ST, and the ST only puts out around 10lb/ft more torque. Also not counting that the RX-8 is N/A and the Fiesta ST is turbocharged.

I agree that the horrendous fuel economy doesn't justify the great power/weight ratios they produce, but you should at least get your facts straight.

>>16385916
The thing is, the Renesis has almost the exact same specs as the F20/F22 in the S2000. Similar power, similar torque, similar redline, similar powerband. But, with MAYBE the exception of physical size, the F engine is superior in every possible way.

>>16385935
>not even bad
same fuel economy as a V8 pickup truck, in a small underpowered "sportscar"
>not even bad

File: download.jpg (20KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x400px

>>16385964
>about 10ft/lbs more

The RX-8 is rated for 159lb/ft of torque at the CRANK. Here is a dyno of a stock Fiesta ST, making 220lb-ft of torque at the WHEELS. Also worth noting that FWD has less drivetrain loss than RWD.

And even on very modest, safe tunes, the FiST typically goes above 250lb-ft of torque.

>>16385983
>americans crying about fuel economy
and i thought ive seen it all
fuck off to yuropoor where you belong, poorfaggot

>>16385995
>thinking how much torque you have matters and not how its delivered
fuck off busrider its irrelevant

>>16385918
10 years ago and beyond every BMW was slow as shit unless it was a M model(and even then it could've been slow as shit depending on where it was released).

>>16386004
Not wanting to drive a car that has retardedly poor fuel economy isn't being poor, it's being smart.

>>16385935
>sorry it isnt a diesel that only revs to 5000rpm. renesis makes peak torque in low end and has a very broad range... thats what matters.

Why don't you refer to the actual torque spec it makes instead of saying peak torque? Aside from trying to just get around saying it I mean.

You're trying way to hard to just cover up the fact that the fucker needs to rev to the goddamn moon to make a measly ~160 ft/lb torque. That's ridiculous.

>>16386026
no it just means your a poorfag
go buy a $500 geo metro or stick to the bus pass, faggot

>>16385995

Yet the RX-8 is faster

https://www.0-60specs.com/car-comparison/?car1=2709&car2=238

>>16386013
Well shit, I guess if a car with 50hp and 10 ft/lbs of torque will beat an equivalent car with 50hp and 50 ft/lbs of torque by your goddamn logic.

Fucking moron.

>>16386030
>Why don't you refer to the actual torque spec it makes
because its irrelevant. horsepower is what makes a car go zoom zoom...

again, sorry it isnt a diesel that revs to 5000rpm. learn something about engines, retard

>>16386033
now you're just shitposting, I'm done

>>16386042
no thats not what im saying... but a '210hp/160lb-ft' car is faster than a car with '180hp/220lb-ft' :^)

>>16386039
and the rx8 is a good deal heavier too, LMAO!

muhtorkz faggots btfo

>>16386030
>You're trying way to hard to just cover up the fact that the fucker needs to rev to the goddamn moon to make a measly ~160 ft/lb torque. That's ridiculous.

It actually has a pretty flat torque curve. It might not make a great amount of torque, but it holds it pretty consistently through the whole rev range.

>>16386055
It may have a higher theoretical top speed, but it would take forever getting there in comparison

File: 2015-ford-mustang-gt-7.jpg (96KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 960x720px

>>16385792
>omg the V8 model has a decent engine!
>The rest of the car must be great

>>16386070
>but it would take forever getting there in comparison
explain why

>>16386084
meanwhile the V6 model is outperformed by everything else and the I4 turbo is an unreliable hunk of shit whiles also being outperformed by everything else.

>>16386089
torque is required for acceleration

>>16386070

It takes about a minute to get up to 145mph. Not sure how long a FiST takes, but that's not bad.

>>16386084
>>16386099

fucking what?

>>16386039
It launches better because RWD. From a roll, or from 0-100 the Fiesta will definitely be faster.

>>16386108
yes but no
horsepower is what matters. the rx8 is faster than the fiesta st, from 0-60 or 0-top speed

>>16386126
rx8 stomps it in the 1/4

fwdcucks gtfo

>>16386112
Normies think the Mustang is great. The only thing great about it are the engines of the V8 models.
The chassis is too heavy.
The track pack does absolutely nothing when compared to Chevrolet's 1LE package
The V6 is outperformed by the Camaro I4 Turbo which is the base model of the Camaro.
The 2.3L Ecoboost is outperformed by the I4 Turbo Camaro despite a large power advantage. This is mainly due t the 2.3L's terrible powerband, especially when compared with the rev-happy 2.0L of the Camaro.
The Camaro V6 1LE, while slower in a straight line, is the same price, and faster around a track than a base model 5.0L V8 GT.
And when comparing Mustang V8 to Camaro V8, the Camaro outclasses it in every measurable category except visibility, which isn't much better in the Mustang anyways.

And that's before getting into the numerous problems with reliability that the Mustang Ecoboost, their biggest seller, has. youtuber Subaruwrxfan bought an ecoboost and had numerous problems with it.

TL;DR: The Mustang is shit, deal with it.

>>16386153
how does all this compare with the challenger? just curious

File: Fix Or Repair Daily.png (282KB, 710x518px)

282KB, 710x518px

^anything by them^

>>16386100
yes

>>16386153
But people will buy the Mustang anyway because

>most people don't track their cars
>it looks better doesn't look the same as last gen
>you can see out of it
>it's more practical
>it's more affordable

If you want a DD instead of a track monster, the Mustang is better than a Camaro.

Busriders need to leave this board.

>>16386156
The Challenger I wanna say is a different class of vehicle that attracts a different customer.
The Challenger is easily the best looking. Performance-wise, it's behind the others. You need a Challenger R/T Scat Pack (6.4L) to equal the straight line performance of the Mustang GT, nevermind the Camaro SS. The Camaro V6 actually puts down similar 1/4 mile times to the Challenger R/T 5.7L.

The Challenger Hellcat isn't a true performance car. it's a straight line package meant to get attention on the Challenger, which it did spectacularly. The Challenger in general doesn't handle that well, partially because it's the heaviest of the bunch being based on an old Mercedes E/S-class platform mashup.

>>16386173
No. Fuck you. The lack of reliability isn't worth it.
The Challenger is the best daily driver out of all the 3 because it's so bad at performance and so good at comfort. and it's more reliable. And there's also the fact you can get an AWD Challenger which is great for those of us who live up north.

Is the Challenger a proper competitor? Not really. It's a comfy nostalgia-cruiser. The Camaro is the track/performance monster of the group, while the Mustang tries to be the most technologically advanced despite failing at it.

>>16386173
>If you want a DD instead of a track monster, the Mustang is better than a Camaro.

Daily drivers are supposed to be reliable though.

>>16386198
rekt him
>>16386194
>partially because it's the heaviest of the bunch being based on an old Mercedes E/S-class platform mashup.
is it at least comfy to ride in? Ausfag here so i only ever see these cars on videos

>>16385792
You have that backwards you silly troll you.

>>16386212
Definitely the comfiest. excluding looks, the new Challenger is probably closer in spirit to an old Chevrolet Monte Carlo or Ford Thunderbird than it is to the original Challenger.

>>16386030
All you need is a gearbox with the right ratios and the absolute torque figure literally doesn't matter as long as the curve is flat.
As per >>16385959 it is very flat and slightly progressive, which is great for sporty driving.

>>16386042
But it will be (assuming same torque spread). Rear wheel torque is what matters, and that can be easily adjusted with a transmission you fuckstick.

>>16386248
fuuuck yus

i'd totally own a challanger i think its the best looking and interesting out of the bunch

Why are Dodge going backwards in reguards to the challanger? Why havent they redesigned the chassis and shit?

>>16385819
assmad mazcuck detected

>>16386264
how is a 50hp/10lbft engine going to have the same torque spread as a 50hp/50lbft engine you fucking idiot

>>16386292
???
By revving higher you illiterate cunt

>>16385820
>tfw no KL RX-8

File: 2016-Alfa-Romeo-Giulia-Quadrifoglio-8.jpg (464KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 2000x1333px

>>16386267
mainly capital. The Challenger uses the chassis of the Charger/300, which itself was a leftover from when Daimler owned Chrysler. From the firewall back, the chassis is a Mercedes E-class, and the firewall forward if from an S-class. The LX platform was never intended for a 2 door coupe, but for a decently comfy RWD Holden Commodore-esque sedan... minus the options for a manual. A manual is only available on that platform if you get the Challenger.
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eInLIqFwSjU

They HAVE engineered a new chassis. The chassis of the next Challenger, Charger, and 300 is already out there. Pic related.

>>16386328
>The chassis of the next Challenger, Charger, and 300 is already out there. Pic related.
And if reviews of that are anything to go by, it's gooooooood.

>>16386328
Rip Holden ;_;

Easily the most comfy car ive ever owned

>>16385935
>stop being poor its not even bad.
I like the 13b but it's fuel economy isn't just bad it hilarious.

3000 mile oil changes and premixing is also absurd for the performance it offers.

>>16386256
>dude just change the final drive ratio, it's easy
>make a car thats already horrible on fuel even worse on fuel
>dude 5000rpm at 70mph isn't that bad for cruising xdddddddddddddddddd

>>16386373
>3000 mile oil changes and premixing is also absurd for the performance it offers.

3000 mile oil change isn't that bad. It's like once every few months unless you daily it, which is pretty unlikely with fuel economy that bad.

>>16386380
>dude just change the final drive ratio, it's easy
Where did I say you needed to change the ratio?
The RX8 is geared much shorter stock than, say, a Focus ST.
>make a car thats already horrible on fuel even worse on fuel
Again, no change required.
>dude 5000rpm at 70mph isn't that bad for cruising xdddddddddddddddddd
It isn't if the engine is designed to rev until 9000rpm.

Fuck off with your memes.

File: 1479777960385.jpg (34KB, 366x331px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 366x331px

>whining about MUH EMPEEGEES
>whining about maintenance
>whining about high revs
>on a fucking sportscar

are you guys fucking poor or something? what are you doing in such an expensive hobby?

if you dont like wrenching why the fuck are you even on /o/?

>>16386436
>rebuilding an engine at 80k should be considered normal maintenance.
fuck off rotard

>>16386395
It's not impossible to live with, but considering the performance the car offers its a bit rediculous. You really really have to like the car to deal with that when there are cars that easily outperform it, do not require premixing, have at least twice the oil change interval, and get twice the fuel efficiency.

>>16386462
Name one. Any one. That meets all of those conditions. Go ahead.

>>16386462
it's cheaper and more comnon than a S2000 or a BRZ

>>16386468
4th gen F-body, C5 Vette

>>16386456
If you're rebuilding a rotary at any less than 150k it is literally your own fucking fault.

>>16386507
signed, the paid Mazda viral marketing director.

>>16386513
Viral marketing was retarded when /v/ thought it was happening and it's ten times as stupid here.

>>16386520
no mazda really wants you to buy their discontinued products

>>16386513
>paid Mazda viral marketing director.


yes, Mazda is paying people to convince you to buy things they no longer sell

oh lord, you've figured it all out, better shut everything down

File: 1.png (54KB, 135x248px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 135x248px

>>16386456
if you're not retarded enough to daily your sportscar that shouldnt even be an issue

besides, why aren't you taking the opportunity to add another dorito while youve got it open?

>>16386099

My coworker just bought a ecoboost mustang, week later dealer has to tow it from our parking lot because It refuse to start, dealer says they believe its an electrical issue. 200 miles on the car.

>>16386547
>besides, why aren't you taking the opportunity to add another dorito while youve got it open?
I thought that was the point of buying a rotary. More doritos during the rebuild.

File: aoeuaoeu.jpg (20KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 256x256px

>>16386436
>215bhp at the crank
>muh sports car

>>16386525
>>16386539
kek

I want a rx8 with the mazdaspeed 3 engine in it

>>16386565
>own a rotary
>leave it n/a
They deserve it honestly

File: fc,550x550,white.u1.jpg (45KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x550px

>>16386577

>>16386475
youll find most corvette owners change their oil every 3k-5k miles
and it isnt the end of the world if you change oil in the rx8 at 5000 miles

>>16386565
>215bhp at the crank
>on an engine the size of an xbox
>easily upgradable

lets see you try and slap some more cylinders on your 4pot shitmobile

Ah, the RX-8 thing again.

You're basically trading fuel economy, reliability, and general ease of ownership for not power but the driving experience. Sure, it's a novel concept, and it is really fun to drive, but it's not something that appeals to most normies or even enthusiasts.

If you're dumb enough to own a rotary like I once was, you're going to wonder why you even bother 70% of the time, but as soon as you hit the togue you forget everything and go full-on rotard. The RX-8 was a really, really fun car, but in financial straits, I didn't like it enough to justify the cost of owning it.

I still regret selling it. But at least I don't have to worry about rebuilding the renesis or setting aside part of my income solely for idemitsu now.

>>16387065
The way I see it, it's not worth it unless you plan on sticking another dorito into the motor when it comes time to rebuild.

Look up the kiwi RX-4 with a 6-rotor engine. They basically have to blip the thing around the track otherwise the driver would just lose the thing completely.

>>16387065
Honestly the only reason I'd ever buy a rotary is to see how retarded I could get with the number of rotors

>>16385792
>>16385810
>normies
>thinking mazdas are good

>>16385897
This is more like it.