6 replies to this topic

[smitty72]

Was wondering if anyone hit these drivers side by side and which do you prefer? and why ?
1 Taylormade burner superfast 2.0
2 Taylormade Rocketballz

[steve_huck]

I have hit both at the store. They are very similar in size and looks. To me the burner feels like butter off the club face, and sounds amazing. The RBZ felt dead to me but still mashed the ball.

[mpell17]

Rbz tour in the bag.  Nuff said.  the more traditional shape vs the superfast fits my eye better and its just crazy long. As long as you can get over the sound at impact, its definitely a winner.

[Ajlepisto]

RBZ no question. I believe there's a significant difference in the shafts as well.

I balloon the Superfast 2.0 stiff, and really smash the RBZ tour.

That said...I went with the Cobra AMP 3w because it's $130 and gave me really similar performance and was much easier to control.

[ruascott]

Why not look for a club that doesn't cost a fortune for average at best quality with junk stock shafts? TM is a marketing company, and that's about it.

[xerpro]

ruascott, on 27 June 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Why not look for a club that doesn't cost a fortune for average at best quality with junk stock shafts? TM is a marketing company, and that's about it.

WOW you really woke up today pissed at TM....The OP was looking for opinions on which driver was better between the SF 2.0 and RBZ, not I hate TM because I suck and cant hit/afford their clubs...12 years...Do you know what that is? #1 driver for 12 straight years.....
52%....Do you know what that is? 52% market share of ALL metalwoods sold in 2012....
Clearly, save your hatred for another time or place....And do us a favor, and dont hit the TM equipment...You might hurt your "Too cool for TM ego"

OP, the differences are subtle, but make a big impact on your game.
SF 2.0 is 46.5" RBZ is 46"
Although they both use 48 gram shafts, the 2.0 is a little lighter.
Across the face, the ball speeds are similar, but the shorter shaft provides a little more control.
If you are the type of player that would benefit from adjustability to improve launch angle or eliminate 1 side of the course, RBZ may be the better bet. I would go and hit both of them, and get fitted if possible.
Hope this helps....
If you need any further clarification or arent able to get fitted, PM me....

[ruascott]

xerpro, on 27 June 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

ruascott, on 27 June 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Why not look for a club that doesn't cost a fortune for average at best quality with junk stock shafts? TM is a marketing company, and that's about it.

WOW you really woke up today pissed at TM....The OP was looking for opinions on which driver was better between the SF 2.0 and RBZ, not I hate TM because I suck and cant hit/afford their clubs...12 years...Do you know what that is? #1 driver for 12 straight years.....
52%....Do you know what that is? 52% market share of ALL metalwoods sold in 2012....
Clearly, save your hatred for another time or place....And do us a favor, and dont hit the TM equipment...You might hurt your "Too cool for TM ego"

OP, the differences are subtle, but make a big impact on your game.
SF 2.0 is 46.5" RBZ is 46"
Although they both use 48 gram shafts, the 2.0 is a little lighter.
Across the face, the ball speeds are similar, but the shorter shaft provides a little more control.
If you are the type of player that would benefit from adjustability to improve launch angle or eliminate 1 side of the course, RBZ may be the better bet. I would go and hit both of them, and get fitted if possible.
Hope this helps....
If you need any further clarification or arent able to get fitted, PM me....

Yeah sorry about that...not normally this grouchy, I'm done, i promise. Sorry for interrupting the thread. Gl to the OP