hey,
Im new to this forum and also dont know much about cars. But I was just wondering, if the rx-8 makes 250 hp on a 1.3L shouldnt it be in the league of a s2000 in 0-60 and 1/4 miles? All i know is that a lot of horsepower on a light engine means fast @$$ car is this a myth or what?

Originally posted by FnL
hey,
Im new to this forum and also dont know much about cars. But I was just wondering, if the rx-8 makes 250 hp on a 1.3L shouldnt it be in the league of a s2000 in 0-60 and 1/4 miles? All i know is that a lot of horsepower on a light engine means fast @$$ car is this a myth or what?
I think that if you're looking for balls out speed, this isn't the car you should look at.

Mazda is developing this car with a fun factor and HANDLING factor as the utmost importance. The 250 horsepower rotary delivers GOOD power to supplement the car's good handling characteristics which make it a FUN FUN FUN car to drive.

I think at least 90%+ of the people on this forum are buying it for the handling.

I will say this though, if you know how to drive well, you can easily take out 90% of what's on the road today. Though for me, I'm not racing... I'm just going to a parking lot and...

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by FnL
hey,
Im new to this forum and also dont know much about cars. But I was just wondering, if the rx-8 makes 250 hp on a 1.3L shouldnt it be in the league of a s2000 in 0-60 and 1/4 miles? All i know is that a lot of horsepower on a light engine means fast @$$ car is this a myth or what?

Without a doubt it will not be a slow vehicle!... Current estimates put it in that area for sure... however you will find that most of the people on this board are far more concearned with the handling that outright speed... since that is one of Mazda's traditional strongpoints.

The car is expected to outhandle practically anything it can't outrun!.

See... they beat me to it...

Originally posted by FnL
... All i know is that a lot of horsepower on a light engine means fast @$$ car is this a myth or what?

Light engines usually are quick revvers. Quick revving, high horsepower engines are rewarding to drive, but I don't know about fast @$$.
I need a definition of fast @$$. Is 0-60 mph in ~6 seconds fast @$$, or is that more of a medium @$$? Is it more important that your @$$ has a quick quater mile? For example, is a 13 second @$$ fast? Perhaps you want your @$$ to do the 1/4 in sub-10. That'd be a smokin' fast @$$. Then again, maybe I've got my @$$ metrics all wrong. Perhaps what matters with @$$'s is a high top speed. I'd consider anything under 130 mph to be a pretty slow @$$ myself, but then, some mornings I have trouble hauling @$$ out of bed.

Originally posted by FnL
hey,
Im new to this forum and also dont know much about cars. But I was just wondering, if the rx-8 makes 250 hp on a 1.3L shouldnt it be in the league of a s2000 in 0-60 and 1/4 miles? All i know is that a lot of horsepower on a light engine means fast @$$ car is this a myth or what?

Aren't you sort of forgeting the dead weight the engine has to lug around, aka, the car? S2K, at this point weighs ~2800, considerably lighter than the last RX-8 numbers we've seen. Also there is no way to see what kind of gearing the RX-8 will have.

So simply as an educated guess based on current info, I'd expect the car to be in the low 6, if not high 5 range. Just a little worse than the S2K.

However, taking refinement of the design into view, I expect the rensis to have a much more useable torque curve than the ultra high-strung 4 that the S2K has. Therefore I have faith that the RX-8 will beat the S2K in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

Grimace, I think that is the funniest post I've read in a while. I too have trouble hauling @$$ out of bed! :D

I had to haull @$$ this morning to work.. VTEC baby.. :D

Not that I condone taking the piss out of new casual members who probably don't understand where we're coming from wrt handling etc.. but I also thought that post was really funny.... Congrats Grimace.

Keep in mind though that as the number of members increases, we will see many more "casual" members with a few posts here and there... lets not scare too many of them away!!

Cheers!!!.

I don't believe the car was intended for this or for that. The car is what you make of it. People are talking about handling and how its not supposed to be about speed. I am sure it will be a great handling car but it would not have 250 hp if it wasn't about speed too.

As for times I am thinking sub 6, sec 0-60 and around 14 or slightly higher for the quarter.

Settle down people its a sports car both handling and speed are important

Let's face facts. RX-8 will not survive on the account of ethusiasts alone.

Most of the people here will probably buy it for the handling, etc. But I'd imagine that most of the cars will be sold be people how could careless about the handling.

If only enthusiasts bought miatas, mazda might not be around anymore.

Originally posted by fritts
I don't believe the car was intended for this or for that. The car is what you make of it. People are talking about handling and how its not supposed to be about speed. I am sure it will be a great handling car but it would not have 250 hp if it wasn't about speed too.

As for times I am thinking sub 6, sec 0-60 and around 14 or slightly higher for the quarter.

Settle down people its a sports car both handling and speed are important

A sports car needs three attributes: performance, handling and looks. The RX-8 has all three.:cool:

I wasn't trying to beat up on the new comer, sorry if I came across that way. Just trying to inject a little humour into a thread that when it starts out this way has traditionally gotten ugly quickly. I made me laugh, anyway! I'll address the comments seriously now that I've had my fun :) :

if the rx-8 makes 250 hp on a 1.3L shouldnt it be in the league of a s2000 in 0-60 and 1/4 miles?

Really wouldn't matter if the RX-8 made 250 HP on 1.3L or 10L or .1L. What matters is the HP/torque curves, weight of the vehicle, gearing, and a multitude of other factors.
That said, the RX-8 should have similar acceleration numbers to the S2000, but no one knows for sure. The RX-8 weighs more, but has more torque, and more importantly, the torque curve is extremely flat.
I addressed your earlier comment in my earlier @$$ post. (Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )

Originally posted by DakarM

If only enthusiasts bought miatas, mazda might not be around anymore.

Perhaps, but the non-enthusiasts that bought the MX-5 quickly fell in love with it after the initial "must have the latest thing" craze wore off.

Originally posted by sheylen


A sports car needs three attributes: performance, handling and looks. The RX-8 has all three.:cool:

... and towing points :D A friend with a flatbed towtruck also helps if it's a Jag. :D

-pete

Originally posted by Grimace


Perhaps, but the non-enthusiasts that bought the MX-5 quickly fell in love with it after the initial "must have the latest thing" craze wore off.


yeah but they bought the car and I think that is a very important point.

Yep, you're right. A sale is a sale is a sale, doesn't matter who is buying it or for what reason in Mazda's eyes.

Originally posted by Grimace
...doesn't matter who is buying it or for what reason in Mazda's eyes. Actually, it does. That way, you won't make any changes to the car that will make it a loser, and you can hopefully do the same thing with other car models.

---jps

I agree, but thats not what I meant. I didn't mean Mazda should change the RX-8 to suit everyone and reach the absolute widest audience. I just meant that if a 80 year old grandfather wanted to buy it, or a 18 year old kid to be the "phatest on the block", it doesn't matter to Mazda who is holding the money.

Originally posted by Hercules
I think at least 90%+ of the people on this forum are buying it for the handling. I guess I'm that <10%. ;) Well, maybe that's a bit misleading. I'm interested in the 8 because it's so fast and practical. Fast meaning it's well balanced in the power it has for its weight and handling prowess. It should tear up a road course as fast as (or faster than!) an S2000 or 350Z -- two rather impractical sports cars.

See, my MR2 is the poster-child for "handling over horsepower." At 112hp and 97ft-lbs, at the flywheel, it's truly slow in a straight line (16.5 quarter mile, 0-60 in low 8s), but it gets the job done at the autocross, embarassing many "faster" cars.

So I suppose from my perspective it seems odd to see people talking about how the RX-8 is all about handling, handling, handling, when it's so much faster in a straight line than the sports car I drive now. :)

Originally posted by BryanH
I guess I'm that <10%. ;) Well, maybe that's a bit misleading. I'm interested in the 8 because it's so fast and practical. Fast meaning it's well balanced in the power it has for its weight and handling prowess. It should tear up a road course as fast as (or faster than!) an S2000 or 350Z -- two rather impractical sports cars.

See, my MR2 is the poster-child for "handling over horsepower." At 112hp and 97ft-lbs, at the flywheel, it's truly slow in a straight line (16.5 quarter mile, 0-60 in low 8s), but it gets the job done at the autocross, embarassing many "faster" cars.

So I suppose from my perspective it seems odd to see people talking about how the RX-8 is all about handling, handling, handling, when it's so much faster in a straight line than the sports car I drive now. :)
You're a bad devil's advocate. If that was entirely true you might consider the 350Z :)

But you aren't.... :D

Originally posted by Hercules
I think at least 90%+ of the people on this forum are buying it for the handling.
This is not the Miata forum is it? I'm on the RX-8 forum right? :p Peace! I keed! I keed!.. lol..

Originally posted by Quick_lude

This is not the Miata forum is it? I'm on the RX-8 forum right? :p Peace! I keed! I keed!.. lol..
*smack*

:D

So what is the speculated weight of the RX-8?

Originally posted by rx714psi
So what is the speculated weight of the RX-8? 2970 was the last curb weight given. I think they probably have it around 2900 lbs though.

Originally posted by Hercules
2970 was the last curb weight given. I think they probably have it around 2900 lbs though.

I'm SURE that's a typo... my Accord Aerodec was only 3000... it's gotta be 2790..

Originally posted by BlueAdept


I'm SURE that's a typo... my Accord Aerodec was only 3000... it's gotta be 2790.
Nope that's not a typo.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=7&page=5

Originally posted by Hercules

Nope that's not a typo.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/features/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=7&page=5

We'll wait and see shall we.....

Originally posted by BlueAdept


We'll wait and see shall we.....
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping for lighter.. but I'm taking things at face value right now :)

That way I figure if they get it to 2700 lbs I can be 10 times more suprised and happy about it :)

It's not going to be a small car.. 106" wheel base, 174" length. Only 1.8 inches shorter than a 3219lb 325i. Can't compare to FWD cars since the extra drivetrain components required for RWD weigh a lot. Lets hope they get it down closer to 2800ish for the base production version though..

Originally posted by Hercules
2970 was the last curb weight given. I think they probably have it around 2900 lbs though.


is that the wet weight?

or dry?

Originally posted by DakarM
is that the wet weight?

or dry?

It's not a motorcycle :)

It was curb weight.

curb weight
n.
The weight of a fueled automobile with standard equipment but without cargo or passengers.

Originally posted by BlueAdept


I'm SURE that's a typo... my Accord Aerodec was only 3000... it's gotta be 2790.

The RX-Evolv was 3500 lbs...

Originally posted by Macabre


It's not a motorcycle :)

It was curb weight.

curb weight
n.
The weight of a fueled automobile with standard equipment but without cargo or passengers.


okay cool :) because some manufacturers measure it differently.

BMWs weight = full wet weight + 180lb driver.

Erm, what are you basing that on? I've never seen any reason to believe that the quoted curb weight of a BMW automobile is a measurement of the something different than that the curb weight of any other vehicle, at least in the US. It would really screw up the crash test and insurance industries if everyone had a different definition of "curb weight" (the one I quoted was from the dictionary, by the way). All information I could find on curb weight said the same thing- all fluids (including fuel) and nothing else.

Originally posted by Macabre
Erm, what are you basing that on? I've never seen any reason to believe that the quoted curb weight of a BMW automobile is a measurement of the something different than that the curb weight of any other vehicle, at least in the US. It would really screw up the crash test and insurance industries if everyone had a different definition of "curb weight" (the one I quoted was from the dictionary, by the way). All information I could find on curb weight said the same thing- all fluids (including fuel) and nothing else.


it's a known fact in the BMW circles. it's also printed in my manual.

Originally posted by Hercules
You're a bad devil's advocate. If that was entirely true you might consider the 350Z :)

But you aren't.... :D That's right, I aren't. :) The 350 is heavy and only has 2 seats. Plus you gotta pay through the nose for LSD.

Originally posted by BryanH
That's right, I aren't. :) The 350 is heavy and only has 2 seats. Plus you gotta pay through the nose for LSD. *nod*

And the interior REALLY sucks.. but that's another story :)

Originally posted by DakarM

it's a known fact in the BMW circles. it's also printed in my manual.

You're saying that your BMW owners manual claims that the quoted curb weight for every BMW is artifically inflated by 180lbs? That seems quite absurd, especially given how much heat they've taken for their recent portly vehicles, and further that curb weight is used for vehicle safety-test classification in the US. I can't fathom why they would choose some arbitrary weight and add it to the quoted specs on every vehicle.

However, if you can show me where it is documented that the actual fully fueled weight of a BMW is 180lbs less than the specified curb weight, I'd love to see it.

Either way, according to C&D and probably R&T also, they actually weigh each tested vehicle on a scale.

Originally posted by BryanH
That's right, I aren't. :) The 350 is heavy and only has 2 seats. Plus you gotta pay through the nose for LSD.

The 350z is about $8500 more than the RX-8 in england... both estimated prices but..

For whatever it's worth, I'm looking at the manual for a 1993 325i and it's listed as:

Unloaded weight
(ready for road, tank full
according to FMVSS 110)

Maybe it's different in later models, or you might have read it incorrectly DakarM?

Originally posted by BlueAdept


The 350z is about $8500 more than the RX-8 in england... both estimated prices but..

How much does a 350z cost in england? Here, that would put the RX-8 starting around $18k :D

I just checked the BMW web site (www.bmwusa.com) for the RWD BMW 330i sedan for the vehicle weight, they list the weight as ‘Unladen lbs 3285 (3362)'.

Does anyone know what this means?

Originally posted by ZoomZoom
I just checked the BMW web site (www.bmwusa.com) for the RWD BMW 330i sedan for the vehicle weight, they list the weight as ‘Unladen lbs 3285 (3362)'.

Does anyone know what this means?

Manual transmission (automatic transmission)

Originally posted by Macabre


Manual transmission (automatic transmission)

I think that you are right about the manual transmission (automatic transmission) part, but what does “unladen lbs.” mean?

Curb weight could be defined as "unladen weight." That is, the weight of the vehicle with no cargo. The other commonly quoted number is "gross vehicle weight rating" which is the weight of the vehicle loaded to its maximum.

Originally posted by Macabre
Curb weight could be defined as "unladen weight." That is, the weight of the vehicle with no cargo. The other commonly quoted number is "gross vehicle weight rating" which is the weight of the vehicle loaded to its maximum.

Is it safe to say that "unladen weight" does NOT include the weight of the driver?

Most likely, yes. It means the same thing as unloaded, and according to my manual that's just with a full tank of gas. It sounds like they jsut switched the wording to look more sophisticated.

Originally posted by Elara
Most likely, yes. It means the same thing as unloaded, and according to my manual that's just with a full tank of gas. It sounds like they jsut switched the wording to look more sophisticated.
Thanks Elara, I guess that BMW has to do something to try to justify their higher pricing.