I don't happen to think the RX-8 is a sports car. Personally, I think you need the following to be a sports car.

1. RWD
2. Manual Transmission
3. Acceptable power / weight
4. Two Seats

I suppose you could make a case for AWD, but it carries a weight penalty and a lot of AWD cars tend to understeer so I would just draw the line at RWD. The manual transmission is a must have, otherwise you end up "riding" more than "driving". The definition of acceptable power/ weight is one that changes over time. What was acceptable 30 years ago would probably feel downright anemic by todays standards. Also I don't think you can really apply it evenly across all cars. I would be willing to have a lower ratio in a lighter car- because I prefer the way a lighter car "feels" in taking the corners. Finally I don't think a sports car can have more than two seats. I consider that a set in stone rule. That doesn't mean that a car can't have acceleration, braking, skidpad, slalom, and whatever other numbers be better than a sports car. I'm sure it can. That doesn't mean I consider it to be a sports car, call it a GT if you like. When you drive the car it may even "feel" like a sports car, but with the back seat it isn't. To me it is part of the definition. Convertible = retractable top. Sedan = four doors. Coupe = two doors. Sports car = two seats.

Having said all that I look forward to taking one for a test drive. This car is in my list of "potentials" when I need to add a car with a back seat to the stable.

 

Take a look at this... http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&...15&pagenumber=1

30% loss in power from crank to wheels or Mazda lied and overstated the HP...

 

I don't buy that 2 seat requirement. all the other requirements I agree with.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PedalFaster
[B]To me, two things that make the S2000 a sports car are its light weight and it's high-revving, front-mid-mounted engine.

 

good point Habiib. it seems that some people feel anything that's not a roadster is not a sportscar. if this car drives half as good as I've seen in a video and as good as professionals claim......it's very deserving of the class.

 

Just because I don't consider it to be a sports car I didn't mean it as a knock against the RX-8. Just because I don't think it's a sports car doesn't mean it's a bad car. Conversely there are some sports cars which I probably wouldn't care to own. For example, although I have never driven the RX-8 or the EVO odds are that I would prefer it to a SLK 320 or perhaps a 350z. One more thing, although it certainly not the authority on all things automotive (or even the English language) from Merriam-Webster Online

sports car
Function: noun
Date: 1928
: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mav
[B]Take a look at this... http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&...15&pagenumber=1
30% loss in power from crank to wheels or Mazda lied and overstated the HP...

 

It says "usually". If you remove that word, then under the revised definition, the Porsche 911 and 944 no longer qualify as sports cars, which is clearly bogus. If you leave it in, then I don't see anything disqualifying the RX-8.

Steve

 

Yea I saw that pedalfaster, but if you read further down, the original thread starter came back and stated he has a 6 Speed version.

 

The engine has yet to be broken in...I used to own a twinturbo rx-7, and after the rebuild, the HP was much lower before break in.