Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Every mag that I have read has shown the RX-8 as about .5 seconds faster than the XF. However, if the test you read was using the auto RX-8 the HP drops from 238 to 197. I am sure an AT RX-8 is slower than the XF. Also you will find a wide range of 0 to 60 time for the RX-8 for this reason and also the fact that you must know how to drive this car to get the most out of it. It is a high RPM low torqure engine. Read the numbers off the C&D web site. They have a long term test on the RX-8. I drive both often back to back and I can tell you the 8 is faster of the line and around the curves. Don't get me wrong, I also love the XF. But, it is a different type of car. It curses very well, gets much better gas mileage, still maintains a sporty feel and has a lot more torqure. The XF has more of a luxury car feel by far. The 8 has a very perscise feel to the steering and response is much faster to steering input than the XF. You must keep the rpms up on the 8, between 5 and 9 k to get the hp out of it. Also the 8 has one of the best gear boxes that you will ever shift. Both are great cars!
I just looked up that long term test, and I must say their "starting" numbers for the RX-8 are among the slowest I've ever seen for that car while the numbers at 40,000 sound more appropriate. Check
HERE for a post I made recently comparing the performance of the RX-8 and Crossfire based on Road & Track Magazine's testing of both cars. The similarities are striking, and R&T test numbers for the RX-8 are on par with C&D's 40,000 mile numbers. The Crossfire was notably faster through the slalom though, and it should be noted that test numbers for the Crossfire were taken on a considerably hotter day. My earlier post links to the R&T test data panels for both cars.