Is it just me, or does Nissan not care anymore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Mazda the lowest of the Japanese pack?

Did Mitsubishi suddenly become better? Because they haven't changed much in their lineup in awhile.
lol.gif



just because mitsubishi hasnt changed their lineup in years has nothing to do with their reliability. perhaps they havent updated their powertrains because they work just fine. perhaps they are not as efficient as your direct injected overengineered 40mpg daewoo. perhaps they dont have the resale of a lexus. they are still rock solid no matter your jaded and ignorant opinion.


Mitsubishi reliability is average at best and everything else about their North American lineup is mediocre at best. They have nothing that is even competitive, and their sales reflect it.
 
Tastes vary, of course.
The RX-8 has been praised for it's handling, but anything that can be humbled in acceleration by something as pedestrian as a V-6 Accord would have to be considered on the slow side of the game.
I also don't know of any four adults who would find a trip of more than a few miles in this car to be comfortable.
Datsun showed how an attractive two seater could be made into an attractive four seater with the 2+2 Z. I had a 280Z 2+2 and really liked it. It really did have room for four adults and their gear. The inline six also featured torque as well as great durability, both things the RX-8 is lacking in.
The heavy, long wheelbase 2+2 also had upper body workout steering, since none of the original Zs had power assist.
At around the same time as Datsun offered the 2+2 Z, BMW offered the gorgeous and roomy six series coupe. It also came with a torquey and durable inline six, while Mercedes offered the V-8 SLC, which looked almost like an SL with its hardtop mounted, but was a much larger car. There aren't too many engines that are more durable than the old iron 450 V-8.
There are thus attractive alternative shapes for a sporty four seater.
Now, I'd take a last gen RX-7, fragile engine and all, before I'd consider an RX-8 or any other Mazda of the current era.
A first gen Miata would also be nice.
Cheap, durable and fun.
 
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Mazda the lowest of the Japanese pack?

Did Mitsubishi suddenly become better? Because they haven't changed much in their lineup in awhile.
lol.gif



just because mitsubishi hasnt changed their lineup in years has nothing to do with their reliability. perhaps they havent updated their powertrains because they work just fine. perhaps they are not as efficient as your direct injected overengineered 40mpg daewoo. perhaps they dont have the resale of a lexus. they are still rock solid no matter your jaded and ignorant opinion.


Ahhh, substantiating your argument by the implication that I am ignorant....yeah. That's much better than a rational fact based argument.

I can't even make fun of the continued use of the '80s origin Sirius engine in the Galant because the ceased to make the Galant. That's like Honda still using an A-series engine to power the Accord today.

Fact: Hyundai ceased to use Mitsubishi engines and became a more reliable car maker.

Mitsubishi does not have a good reliability record. I'm not saying that you cannot get a good service life out of a Mitsubishi. Just that many people have not. Many many people.

then there's this:

motivator856ecd7ce53e82430b7699023a.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Tastes vary, of course.
The RX-8 has been praised for it's handling, but anything that can be humbled in acceleration by something as pedestrian as a V-6 Accord would have to be considered on the slow side of the game.
I also don't know of any four adults who would find a trip of more than a few miles in this car to be comfortable.
Datsun showed how an attractive two seater could be made into an attractive four seater with the 2+2 Z. I had a 280Z 2+2 and really liked it. It really did have room for four adults and their gear. The inline six also featured torque as well as great durability, both things the RX-8 is lacking in.
The heavy, long wheelbase 2+2 also had upper body workout steering, since none of the original Zs had power assist.
At around the same time as Datsun offered the 2+2 Z, BMW offered the gorgeous and roomy six series coupe. It also came with a torquey and durable inline six, while Mercedes offered the V-8 SLC, which looked almost like an SL with its hardtop mounted, but was a much larger car. There aren't too many engines that are more durable than the old iron 450 V-8.
There are thus attractive alternative shapes for a sporty four seater.
Now, I'd take a last gen RX-7, fragile engine and all, before I'd consider an RX-8 or any other Mazda of the current era.
A first gen Miata would also be nice.
Cheap, durable and fun.


I had a 77 280Z. The engines and trannies in the 240-280ZX's were indestructable.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Tastes vary, of course.
The RX-8 has been praised for it's handling, but anything that can be humbled in acceleration by something as pedestrian as a V-6 Accord would have to be considered on the slow side of the game.
I also don't know of any four adults who would find a trip of more than a few miles in this car to be comfortable.
Datsun showed how an attractive two seater could be made into an attractive four seater with the 2+2 Z. I had a 280Z 2+2 and really liked it. It really did have room for four adults and their gear. The inline six also featured torque as well as great durability, both things the RX-8 is lacking in.
The heavy, long wheelbase 2+2 also had upper body workout steering, since none of the original Zs had power assist.

For the record, the RX-8 is roomier in back than a Lexus IS.
It's WAYYY more roomy in back than any 280Z/280ZX/300ZX 2+2. Have you ever actually attempted to sit in the back of a 280Z 2+2? Contortionists flinch at the thought of a ride in the back of a 280Z 2+2. Geo Storms have more back seat room.

And as far as the V6 Accord being faster, much of the same was said against the Honda S2000. Wahhhh...you can't compare it to a Boxster or Z4...they have torque...your stupid Honda (creates negative pressure) because it has no torque

And yet the RX-8 and S2000 will tear up so-called superior cars on a roadcourse
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Tastes vary, of course.
The RX-8 has been praised for it's handling, but anything that can be humbled in acceleration by something as pedestrian as a V-6 Accord would have to be considered on the slow side of the game.
I also don't know of any four adults who would find a trip of more than a few miles in this car to be comfortable.


Myself, my gf, and my mom drove from Denver to Santa Fe last October, in my RX-8.
All of us were perfectly comfortable there and back.
Nice quiet cabin, comfortable supportive seats, and it was a very relaxing drive.

So, there were 3 of us, not 4, but it's the same difference.

And last time I checked, the V6 Accord makes 270+ hp, vs the RX-8's 231 hp.
Only 212 hp if the RX-8 has an automatic transmission.

Do you normally compare vehicle acceleration rates when one vehicle out powers the other by well over 40 hp?

Regardless, I would still much rather have an RX-8 over a Honda Accord.

BC.
 
Not sure what the Honda S2000 has to do with the hapless Mazda RX-8?
The S2000 is almost universally well regarded, and will leave an RX-8 for dead on the straights and in the corners.
I'll grant you that the RX-8 does have more rear seat room than does the S2000.
Incidentally, the word "sucks" is not subject to the censor.
 
Comfortable, huh?
Is that what the poor person stuck in the back really thought?
WRT power, something calling itself a sports car should probably offer more power than a mainstream Japanese sedan, particularly when it costs more than the sedan.
That the Accord is stronger than the RX-8 is more an indictment of the Mazda than a fault of the Honda.
 
Don't forget that the RX8's glorified 2-stroke engine manages to guzzle fuel! It is rated at a stunningly-bad 16 city, 22 highway. (In perspective, my 4200lb Magnum R/T, with the 340HP Hemi, was rated 17/25!)
 
The S2000 with 2-2.2L I4 engine can compete with Z4, Boxster, SLK350, 370Z ... cars with 6-cylinders and 3 liters or more on a road course, the more tight turns the better for S2000.

The S2000 has all major components work out well, from engine to transmission, from suspension to rigid chassis ... makes the car a blast to drive.

Watch this video of a prototype S2000 on Nurburging track in 1998, it is amazing a 2 liter I-4 can perform.
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Not sure what the Honda S2000 has to do with the hapless Mazda RX-8?



Both the S2000 and RX-8 are much maligned for their lack of torque in various automotive forums. The Teutonophiles just about had a group seizure when the S2000 or RX-8 won vs Porsche or BMW.

Hapless? The RX-8 won handling comparisons vs the BMW M3 Best handling car . It won a direct comparison vs the S2000 and 350Z. 350Z vs S2000 vs RX-8

The car is a pleasure to drive. Balanced, comfortable, precise and smooth. If it got better gas mileage, I would not have even considered my 6. The fuel economy is a sticking point. I concede that.

The RX-8 is a tick faster than the FR-S and BRZ and it has a more roomy backseat but I don't hear anybody complaining about those cars. Fuel economy is the only place that the Scion-baru beats the RX-8. The first round of Genesis Coupe 2.0t is the same story except the RX-8 is better balanced.
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: cptbarkey
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

Mazda the lowest of the Japanese pack?

Did Mitsubishi suddenly become better? Because they haven't changed much in their lineup in awhile.
lol.gif



just because mitsubishi hasnt changed their lineup in years has nothing to do with their reliability. perhaps they havent updated their powertrains because they work just fine. perhaps they are not as efficient as your direct injected overengineered 40mpg daewoo. perhaps they dont have the resale of a lexus. they are still rock solid no matter your jaded and ignorant opinion.


Ahhh, substantiating your argument by the implication that I am ignorant....yeah. That's much better than a rational fact based argument.

I can't even make fun of the continued use of the '80s origin Sirius engine in the Galant because the ceased to make the Galant. That's like Honda still using an A-series engine to power the Accord today.

Fact: Hyundai ceased to use Mitsubishi engines and became a more reliable car maker.

Mitsubishi does not have a good reliability record. I'm not saying that you cannot get a good service life out of a Mitsubishi. Just that many people have not. Many many people.

then there's this:

motivator856ecd7ce53e82430b7699023a.jpg




put your money where you mouth is:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/04/monday-mileage-champion-on-the-road-again/

"13% of Mitsubishis are now traded in with over 180k. I happen to finance an awful lot of them these days with a clear conscience. So this is no surprise from where I sit. "
 
I have a 2002 Gallant ES Runs like new, plus the engine looks factory clean. I'd say there very reliable cars and is probably the only Japanese auto maker I'll consider. Check out my post on replacing the valve cover gasket for my car. See the proof that Mitsubishi has great engines. BTW it has 153K right now.
 
1st generation DSM cars were great. My brother still has his 1990 Talon Turbo in almost immaculate condition. Granted, he is attached to it as it is his first new car and has put money in to it but the engine is untouched and that turbo pushes you back in the seat once you get it on. It is still lot of fun to drive it even after close to 25 years.
 
I fail to see how Mitsubishi's variant of the GEMA is superior in any way to the Hyundai or Chrysler.

It's all a moot point. Mitsubishi is WAY behind Mazda and Subaru in sales who are well behind Honda, Nissan,and Toyota.

Mitsubishi in the USA is practically pushing up daisies as we speak...type...whatever.

Suzuki had a quality high regarded car (Kizashi) and it couldn't save them.

Mitsubishi has no midsize sedan, the Lancer is consistantly ranked behind the Focus, Cruze, Jetta, Mazda3 and Civic, and I do not see the Outlanders ever intruding on CR-V, CX-5, or Escape sales.

Barring some miracle, Mitsubishi is dead. They just haven't planted the body
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
I fail to see how Mitsubishi's variant of the GEMA is superior in any way to the Hyundai or Chrysler.


pretty sure that had nothing to do with my original point. my original point is mitsubishi is and has been very reliable. irregardless of their sales, outdated engineering, styling, and consumer appeal. enjoy the facts and move along.
 
Seems some brands stick around so dealers who sell financing have cars to sell
smile.gif


Seems that was the Kia and Hyundai M.O. until their cars largely caught up with the competition. Put enough money on the hood and you can get the credit challenged financed.

There could be a way out for Mitsubishi now that there are signs of economic recovery. Not likely, but it could happen if they committed to moving the metal in the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top