Yeah, I was aware of the under-rated power, but I had no idea that it was that big of a difference. Sometimes you just have to wonder about GM's corporate politics.
So yes, I do acknowledge that the F-Body is fast, but I still tell you that an Rx-7 could waste it on a road course <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I am about 6 feet tall, maybe 6'1," and 6'4" with shoes on and my 2-3" of vertical hair The car punishes width more than height, and I'm only 163 lbs. I don't even have the seat pushed back all the way, and it fits a lot better than a lot of other cars I've been in that are much larger.
I also have a friend who is 6' and 200 (he's a javelin throwing ball of muscle) who manages to fit in fairly well. The only people who have trouble are the elderly and the obese, who tend to fare better in the Camaros and Corvettes out there. (75% of vettes are automatic. . . hurl)</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmm, I'm a bit taller than you, and while I certainly am not thin, I wouldn't say I'm fat either. I dunno if the floor people at the shows couldn't adjust the seats (electric) all the way back, but I had my neck craned over in the drivers seat and hated it. I really had to slouch. If I tried to sit up straight My chin would've cleared the headliner. I hate cars that just look like they have headroom, but require you to slouch, or bow your head ever so slightly to get a good look down the road or up to a stop light/road sign ('cause of the way they've positioned the windshield glass). It may look good, but it's very crappy ergonomics. Even a lot of mid to small SUV's and minivans exhibit this annoying trait. Garbage. Look at a porsche or a SAAB. Despite being small, you can look out the top of the windshield without craning your neck too much. Current volkswagens are good too.
It's not a width problem. It's a height and seat position problem. The new mini is a lot narrower than the RX-7 but it's more spacious inside. And the last firebirds aren't all that great up front, for the same reason as the RX-7, though the Corvette is very comfortable both in seating and outward visiblity.
hmmm, I'm a bit taller than you, and while I certainly am not thin, I wouldn't say I'm fat either. I dunno if the floor people at the shows couldn't adjust the seats (electric) all the way back, but I had my neck craned over in the drivers seat and hated it.
<hr></blockquote>
If you're refering to the FD Rx-7's (93-95 in America, through 2001 in Japan) There is no electric seat option, as far as I know. I have a pretty loaded Rx-7, which means sunroof and a CD player. I don't have the Bose system though. The only other option packages of any interest are the R packages, which includes stiffer shocks, a front spoiler, a second oil cooler, and suede seats (at over 1g testers noticed that they slid around in the leather seats too much) -- No sunroof, no Bose.
I "know" a guy who is 6'5" who has an RX-7, and he doesn't seem to have a problem. (A lot of 3rd gen owners know each other very casually.) He's quite thin though.
How much does the sunroof cut down on headroom in the 3rd Gens, if any? I have a sunroof on my celica and I regret getting it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it doesn't cut out any headroom. It's not a moonroof, just a sunroof. Hence no glass. However, every Rx-7 I've been in has one, so I can't tell you if the purely hardtop 7's have more headroom, though I really don't think they do.
I need to get another RX-7. I had an '85. I loved everything about that car - even the choke. I'd like to get a 3rd gen but it doesn't quite fit my lifestyle these days and I can't afford to have something just parked in the garage. I'm going to have to find the money though...
Grover! What's the bitch about convertibles? You need to be someplace where people won't see you. That's the whole point. There's nothing like having the top down on some sunny autumn day, winding down a favorite piece of country road. You look up through the canopy of leaves, the blue sky beyond, the crispness of October, the leaves swirling in your wake... It's the sensation, man.
<strong>I need to get another RX-7. I had an '85. I loved everything about that car - even the choke. I'd like to get a 3rd gen but it doesn't quite fit my lifestyle these days and I can't afford to have something just parked in the garage. I'm going to have to find the money though...
Grover! What's the bitch about convertibles? You need to be someplace where people won't see you. That's the whole point. There's nothing like having the top down on some sunny autumn day, winding down a favorite piece of country road. You look up through the canopy of leaves, the blue sky beyond, the crispness of October, the leaves swirling in your wake... It's the sensation, man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though. It has 4 doors that open in a clamshell fashion, and supposedly 4 people can actually fit inside with a decent degree of comfortability (more so than Integra or RSX by far. It also has a lot more juice than the RSX. . . 250hp standard. Priced in the 20's.
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though. It has 4 doors that open in a clamshell fashion, and supposedly 4 people can actually fit inside with a decent degree of comfortability (more so than Integra or RSX by far. It also has a lot more juice than the RSX. . . 250hp standard. Priced in the 20's.
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though. It has 4 doors that open in a clamshell fashion, and supposedly 4 people can actually fit inside with a decent degree of comfortability (more so than Integra or RSX by far. It also has a lot more juice than the RSX. . . 250hp standard. Priced in the 20's.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, it's a definite possibility. But I just like that 3rd gen so much.
but its quite heavy, is it not? its VERY slow in comparison to its predicessor...which is why im not even considering it in any comparisons...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's 2900 lbs, I think. I read that in the car magazine that JUST came out. Obviously the weight is based on options too, but I think the base in 2900 lbs. That makes it 100lbs more than my 7 and only 150 or 200 more than the RSX. I think that actually weighs LESS than the S2000.
It's 2900 lbs, I think. I read that in the car magazine that JUST came out. Obviously the weight is based on options too, but I think the base in 2900 lbs. That makes it 100lbs more than my 7 and only 150 or 200 more than the RSX. I think that actually weighs LESS than the S2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>
S2k is 2800...
but it just seems to me that everything about the rx8 is slower and inferior compared to its predecessor...
but it just seems to me that everything about the rx8 is slower and inferior compared to its predecessor...
i dunno...maybe its just me that doesnt like it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah. It's slower than the 7 and handles with less aplomb, but it's targetting a different audience. The 4th gen 7 has probably been designed to a large extent already, and Mazda is just waiting to see if the 8 sells well. If it does, than the 4th gen 7 will show up in 2 or 3 years.
Even so I bet the 8 could hold its own against some lesser technology like the s2k.
Comments
So yes, I do acknowledge that the F-Body is fast, but I still tell you that an Rx-7 could waste it on a road course <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
I am about 6 feet tall, maybe 6'1," and 6'4" with shoes on and my 2-3" of vertical hair The car punishes width more than height, and I'm only 163 lbs. I don't even have the seat pushed back all the way, and it fits a lot better than a lot of other cars I've been in that are much larger.
I also have a friend who is 6' and 200 (he's a javelin throwing ball of muscle) who manages to fit in fairly well. The only people who have trouble are the elderly and the obese, who tend to fare better in the Camaros and Corvettes out there. (75% of vettes are automatic. . . hurl)</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmmm, I'm a bit taller than you, and while I certainly am not thin, I wouldn't say I'm fat either. I dunno if the floor people at the shows couldn't adjust the seats (electric) all the way back, but I had my neck craned over in the drivers seat and hated it. I really had to slouch. If I tried to sit up straight My chin would've cleared the headliner. I hate cars that just look like they have headroom, but require you to slouch, or bow your head ever so slightly to get a good look down the road or up to a stop light/road sign ('cause of the way they've positioned the windshield glass). It may look good, but it's very crappy ergonomics. Even a lot of mid to small SUV's and minivans exhibit this annoying trait. Garbage. Look at a porsche or a SAAB. Despite being small, you can look out the top of the windshield without craning your neck too much. Current volkswagens are good too.
It's not a width problem. It's a height and seat position problem. The new mini is a lot narrower than the RX-7 but it's more spacious inside. And the last firebirds aren't all that great up front, for the same reason as the RX-7, though the Corvette is very comfortable both in seating and outward visiblity.
[QB]
hmmm, I'm a bit taller than you, and while I certainly am not thin, I wouldn't say I'm fat either. I dunno if the floor people at the shows couldn't adjust the seats (electric) all the way back, but I had my neck craned over in the drivers seat and hated it.
<hr></blockquote>
If you're refering to the FD Rx-7's (93-95 in America, through 2001 in Japan) There is no electric seat option, as far as I know. I have a pretty loaded Rx-7, which means sunroof and a CD player. I don't have the Bose system though. The only other option packages of any interest are the R packages, which includes stiffer shocks, a front spoiler, a second oil cooler, and suede seats (at over 1g testers noticed that they slid around in the leather seats too much) -- No sunroof, no Bose.
I "know" a guy who is 6'5" who has an RX-7, and he doesn't seem to have a problem. (A lot of 3rd gen owners know each other very casually.) He's quite thin though.
<strong> I have a pretty loaded Rx-7, which means sunroof and a CD player.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How much does the sunroof cut down on headroom in the 3rd Gens, if any? I have a sunroof on my celica and I regret getting it...
<strong>
How much does the sunroof cut down on headroom in the 3rd Gens, if any? I have a sunroof on my celica and I regret getting it...</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it doesn't cut out any headroom. It's not a moonroof, just a sunroof. Hence no glass. However, every Rx-7 I've been in has one, so I can't tell you if the purely hardtop 7's have more headroom, though I really don't think they do.
Grover! What's the bitch about convertibles? You need to be someplace where people won't see you. That's the whole point. There's nothing like having the top down on some sunny autumn day, winding down a favorite piece of country road. You look up through the canopy of leaves, the blue sky beyond, the crispness of October, the leaves swirling in your wake... It's the sensation, man.
<strong>I need to get another RX-7. I had an '85. I loved everything about that car - even the choke. I'd like to get a 3rd gen but it doesn't quite fit my lifestyle these days and I can't afford to have something just parked in the garage. I'm going to have to find the money though...
Grover! What's the bitch about convertibles? You need to be someplace where people won't see you. That's the whole point. There's nothing like having the top down on some sunny autumn day, winding down a favorite piece of country road. You look up through the canopy of leaves, the blue sky beyond, the crispness of October, the leaves swirling in your wake... It's the sensation, man.</strong><hr></blockquote>
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</p>
<strong>
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though.
[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Splinemodel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
but its quite heavy, is it not? its VERY slow in comparison to its predicessor...which is why im not even considering it in any comparisons...
<strong>
THe Rx-8 is going to hit showrooms in January 2003. Granted it wasn't designed to be an spirited sports car like the 3rd gen, it is still quite capable, at least on paper. It fits more of the mold of the 2nd gen, except that it's a lot more practical and reliable.
Still got those Mazda quirks though.
Yeah, it's a definite possibility. But I just like that 3rd gen so much.
<strong>
but its quite heavy, is it not? its VERY slow in comparison to its predicessor...which is why im not even considering it in any comparisons...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's 2900 lbs, I think. I read that in the car magazine that JUST came out. Obviously the weight is based on options too, but I think the base in 2900 lbs. That makes it 100lbs more than my 7 and only 150 or 200 more than the RSX. I think that actually weighs LESS than the S2000.
<strong>
It's 2900 lbs, I think. I read that in the car magazine that JUST came out. Obviously the weight is based on options too, but I think the base in 2900 lbs. That makes it 100lbs more than my 7 and only 150 or 200 more than the RSX. I think that actually weighs LESS than the S2000.</strong><hr></blockquote>
S2k is 2800...
but it just seems to me that everything about the rx8 is slower and inferior compared to its predecessor...
i dunno...maybe its just me that doesnt like it.
<strong>
S2k is 2800...
but it just seems to me that everything about the rx8 is slower and inferior compared to its predecessor...
i dunno...maybe its just me that doesnt like it.
Yeah. It's slower than the 7 and handles with less aplomb, but it's targetting a different audience. The 4th gen 7 has probably been designed to a large extent already, and Mazda is just waiting to see if the 8 sells well. If it does, than the 4th gen 7 will show up in 2 or 3 years.
Even so I bet the 8 could hold its own against some lesser technology like the s2k.