car has 745 miles on it. bone stock with dsc off . me driving

RT .669
60FT 2.365
330 6.445
1/8 9.833
MPH 73.05
1000 12.752
1/4 15.210
MPH 91.86

i ran twice first ran was 15.49 @ 91mph with a 2.5 60 FT

this car has atleast a 14.8 on street tires in it. i SMOKED the tires when i launched ;)

Good times......

It's good to hear there is a faster run possible.....
.
.
.
doc

nice
those are better times then I've seen posted here

honestly that is horrible. i know i can do much better but i am just not used to the car yet. have to try some different techniques. i didn't hook up at all. 14.5 can be attained on a PERFECT run

Originally posted by vosko
14.5 can be attained on a PERFECT run

Not to be an ass but your dreaming if you really think you can improve from a 15.2 to a 14.5 (0.7 diff!!) with a "perfect launch" and get a 14.5... I'd say it would be hard to do much better then a 2.100 60' with an rx8 given the power it has, even given your dyno your car is getting about 10HP to the wheels more then most others I have seen. My best 60' EVER in my 350z in about 20 runs was a 2.047, 2nd best was a 2.12, most are in the 2.18-2.25 range.

With even a 2.10 60' (on your car with above average dynos) your car will most likely not see any better then a 14.900. I been in the drag racing numbers game awhile, and I seen enough slips to know that this is how it works. Another guy on this site posted a time slip of a 15.16@91.95 with a 2.16 60', as you can see with a much better 60' he still only got a 15.16, more comparative to the average RX8 dynos seen, he would need close to a 2.0 60 for a run that would crack into the 14's

Like I said, not trying to be an ass, just pointing out facts from dreams. Nobody thats getting a 2.36 60' is gonna improve .7 by running a 2.05-2.1 60' (perfect launch).

FYI: As a rule of thumb, about a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12. So giving your times vs 60's, for you to have a legitimate shot at a 14.5 ET, you would need a 1.7 60', and even most high powered AWD cars such as the Subaru STI and Evo are getting 1.8-1.9's on average

So to crack into the 14's (like 14.99) on your peticular car, shoot for a 2.10-2.15, it will be good for a 14.9xx run. Most other RX8's I have seen numbers from with average dynos would need closer to a 2.0-2.05 to crack into the 14's.

350 didn't you say goodbye and leave us like five times already

WTF? Blue350 are you saying that .1 decrease in 60ft ft time results in a .12 sec gain in the 1/4 mile? Rule of thumb up your ass. So if I go from a 1.9 to a 1.3 I just gained .7 seconds? I think 60ft times have a much greater impact on your times.

****Moderator Edit*****

actually on my 1989 RX7 Turbo II with almost the same HP as the RX8 i did a 1.91 60 FT on 205/50/16 kumho 712's......... it can be done. it is all dependent on the driver

Originally posted by vosko
car has 745 miles on it. bone stock with dsc off . me driving

RT .669
60FT 2.365
330 6.445
1/8 9.833
MPH 73.05
1000 12.752
1/4 15.210
MPH 91.86

i ran twice first ran was 15.49 @ 91mph with a 2.5 60 FT

this car has atleast a 14.8 on street tires in it. i SMOKED the tires when i launched ;)

How did you launch it?

Originally posted by 14s4doorNA
WTF? Blue350 are you saying that .1 decrease in 60ft ft time results in a .12 sec gain in the 1/4 mile? Rule of thumb up your ass. So if I go from a 1.9 to a 1.3 I just gained .7 seconds? I think 60ft times have a much greater impact on your times.



And Vosko, If you can get below a 2.0 in your RX8, more power to ya, but I am betting on average maybe 1 out of 20-30 runs will be better then a 2.1. But I hope you hit the track again soon, i'd like to see some more numbers from your rx8 with some better 60's...

I am going to the local import wars in NH this saterday, I will also have some fresh time slips this weekend.

--PS. If you doubt the .1 60' = .11-.12 1/4 ET, check my own timeslips in my sig and do the math yourself.

I'm the one who did the 2.15 60', 15.15 w/ term at 91.xx (I keep forgetting the exact #s). Did you have TCS fully off (slippery looking yellow car pic in the tach gauge? Or just DSC off?

I 'think' that we can reduce our 60' times to maybe 2.00 sec with it fully off and a 'perfect' launch. I'm not sure how hard it is to get under 15 seconds though. I think it's possible. But to get to 14.5 or even 14.6 is a huge difference, IMH and not very strip experienced opinion. what were the atmospheric conditions like when you ran - esp temp and humidity?

turned it fully off. first launch was 9200rpm and dump. 2nd launch was 8500rpm slip then dump. both resulted in massive wheelspin like i was on 5 inch wide tires. all that massive torque its a killer for launching :D

Originally posted by vosko
turned it fully off. first launch was 9200rpm and dump. 2nd launch was 8500rpm slip then dump. both resulted in massive wheelspin like i was on 5 inch wide tires. all that massive torque its a killer for launching :D

Vosko your times are very interesting. It seems the rx8 you drove was putting down about 175 wheel hp at the track. I have a 97 jetta vr6 w/ mods, i have dynoed 171~173 wheel hp on 2 different dynojets several times. My jetta weights about the same as the rx8 , 3000 lb+-

Its amazing but i have almost identical timeslips you posted, with stock tires 2.3xx 60ft times, 91.xx trap speeds and 15.2xx 1/4 mile times. I dont have a scanner here but i am looking at the slips and cant help notice how similar the numbers are to yours.

If I remember correctly the gearing it VERY high on the RX and since its a 6 speed it would be quite a bit difference from your probably 5 speed Jetta and would also require an extra shift on the RX, that where the extra time may have came from.

But then again that is all theory so who knows.

Originally posted by vosko
turned it fully off. first launch was 9200rpm and dump. 2nd launch was 8500rpm slip then dump. both resulted in massive wheelspin like i was on 5 inch wide tires. all that massive torque its a killer for launching :D

[jaw dropping]
You dumped the clutch @ 9.2K ? OMG..OK, gotta go for an aspirin.
Please tell me that's your mechanics car, isn't it?

Originally posted by Sneakyracer


Vosko your times are very interesting. It seems the rx8 you drove was putting down about 175 wheel hp at the track. I have a 97 jetta vr6 w/ mods, i have dynoed 171~173 wheel hp on 2 different dynojets several times. My jetta weights about the same as the rx8 , 3000 lb+-

Its amazing but i have almost identical timeslips you posted, with stock tires 2.3xx 60ft times, 91.xx trap speeds and 15.2xx 1/4 mile times. I dont have a scanner here but i am looking at the slips and cant help notice how similar the numbers are to yours.

its all physics..... ;)

Originally posted by RX8-TX


[jaw dropping]
You dumped the clutch @ 9.2K ? OMG..OK, gotta go for an aspirin.
Please tell me that's your mechanics car, isn't it?

how do you think i launch my rx7's ? i usually 1.70 60 FT's spinning the 305/40/16 M&H race master drag radials :D

********Moderator Edit***********

these nerd ex-piston drivers buy RX8s now because it looks good.

Learn how to launch properly redline your car and shift quick then post your time. [/B][/QUOTE]

14s4door, it's appreciated that you voice your opinion. bigotry (toward piston engines not so much, but people who drive them) and flaming are completely unecessary.

please calm yourself, and remain constructive.

ok my bad

Originally posted by Blue 350z
Not to be an ass but your dreaming if you really think you can improve from a 15.2 to a 14.5 (0.7 diff!!) with a "perfect launch" and get a 14.5... I'd say it would be hard to do much better then a 2.100 60' with an rx8 given the power it has...

...With even a 2.10 60' (on your car with above average dynos) your car will most likely not see any better then a 14.900. I been in the drag racing numbers game awhile...

...FYI: As a rule of thumb, about a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12. So giving your times vs 60's, for you to have a legitimate shot at a 14.5 ET, you would need a 1.7 60', and even most high powered AWD cars such as the Subaru STI and Evo are getting 1.8-1.9's on average


Hi Blue350z,

I'll take your word that a 2.100 60' is close to a "perfect launch" because I have absolutely no experience drag racing and you have been in the "drag racing numbers game awhile". In fact, I'd think that most RX-8 owners are not quite as avid about 1/4 mile drag racing as you are so perhaps you could educate some of us a bit here. :)

Your drag racing numbers experience has led you to believe that "a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12". Would these numbers not be different for different cars? For example, if a .1 second faster 60' time of a 350z led to a .12 faster 1/4 mile, does the same apply to an RX-8 or S2000?

The timeslips from Rotarynews.com showed had info that production RX-8 "Red 90" posted the following stats on different runs:

.................. Run A ................. Run B
60' ............ 2.519 sec ............ 2.405 sec
1/4 mile ..... 15.209 sec ........... 14.736 sec

One run was about a tenth of a second (.114) faster @ 60' but was almost a half second (.473) faster in the 1/4 mile. Since these numbers are drastically different than your estimates, do you think that they are fabricated? Or is it possible that cars that have their peak torque at higher rpms (and thinner tires) might have their drag times a little more affected by a good launch?

It is a common tendency for many people to believe that their opinions are facts while anybody with a different opinion is dreaming or ignorant. Perhaps we can all put aside this tendency and become more enlightened in the process (without all of the namecalling)?

Brian

We should focus on trap speed, not ET.

Originally posted by Buger


Hi Blue350z,

I'll take your word that a 2.100 60' is close to a "perfect launch" because I have absolutely no experience drag racing and you have been in the "drag racing numbers game awhile". In fact, I'd think that most RX-8 owners are not quite as avid about 1/4 mile drag racing as you are so perhaps you could educate some of us a bit here. :)

Your drag racing numbers experience has led you to believe that "a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12". Would these numbers not be different for different cars? For example, if a .1 second faster 60' time of a 350z led to a .12 faster 1/4 mile, does the same apply to an RX-8 or S2000?

The timeslips from Rotarynews.com showed had info that production RX-8 "Red 90" posted the following stats on different runs:

.................. Run A ................. Run B
60' ............ 2.519 sec ............ 2.405 sec
1/4 mile ..... 15.209 sec ........... 14.736 sec

One run was about a tenth of a second (.114) faster @ 60' but was almost a half second (.473) faster in the 1/4 mile. Since these numbers are drastically different than your estimates, do you think that they are fabricated? Or is it possible that cars that have their peak torque at higher rpms (and thinner tires) might have their drag times a little more affected by a good launch?

It is a common tendency for many people to believe that their opinions are facts while anybody with a different opinion is dreaming or ignorant. Perhaps we can all put aside this tendency and become more enlightened in the process (without all of the namecalling)?

Brian

The .1 = .11-.12 it the same on any street car. Think of it this way, if you gain .1 in the first 60' that means your already .1 ahead. The .01-.02 comes from a slightly better trap speed (usually).

And the car slips you just showed could of been a number of things:

1. 2 diffrent cars ran those numbers (1 with the US ECU and 1 with the un-tweaked ECU)
2. On the longer ET its possible a gear was missed if it was the same car
3. Fabricated times or just times from 2 totally diffrent cars (not even RX8)

IMO- Its number 1

The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly. Launches really don't effect trap times much unless its a really bad launch, like excessive spinning or bogging.

my first run with the dsc totally off. 15.00@92mph 2.3 60 ft. second run 14.87@93mph with a 2.20 60ft. If I could get a solid 2.0 60 ft. ill run 14.6

Pretty cool, Judge Ito!

Out of curiosity, what octane gas did the car have? How many miles on it?

Originally posted by Judge Ito
my first run with the dsc totally off. 15.00@92mph 2.3 60 ft. second run 14.87@93mph with a 2.20 60ft. If I could get a solid 2.0 60 ft. ill run 14.6

Nice runs! It will be VERY hard to do better then a 2.1 60', expecially consistantly. A 2.05-2.1 60' will net you about a 14.7x.. But you can expect on average 2.2-2.25ish 60's.. Do you have the slips? Also the trap speed is still pretty low, but the times are good!

Originally posted by O.R.A.
Pretty cool, Judge Ito!

Out of curiosity, what octane gas did the car have? How many miles on it? vp 100 octane unleaded. car has 1100 miles.

Originally posted by Blue 350z


Nice runs! It will be VERY hard to do better then a 2.1 60', expecially consistantly. A 2.05-2.1 60' will net you about a 14.7x.. But you can expect on average 2.2-2.25ish 60's.. Do you have the slips? Also the trap speed is still pretty low, but the times are good! yes, still have the time slips. I need more then 2 time runs to dial in the 60ft. to a better one. Ill try tomorrow again at my local race track.

wow, a 15.2s quarter mile. My boenstock mazdaspeed protege ran a 15.4s quarter mile stock. After some slight exhaust work and a new intake it would 15.2s I'll go back through my timeslips to see what the rest of the numbers were, but I was under the impression that the RX-8 was faster than the mazdaspeed? Also, it may be a tenth or two faster than a stock mazdaspeed, but a $40 boost controller will seal the deal for the protege. Wow, I'm not trying to knock the 8 in any way. I'm just surprised it's not any faster. I wonder how the two would compare side by side. I know by the numbers that a stock mazdaspeed has more torque at a lower rpm than the 8. Also, with the new flash the msp owners are claiming a much stronger pull. Some claim a 20+hp gain and they have the dyno's to back it up. I think thats great. Also, MSP's are now running for $16K. Again, just to clarify, I love the RX-8. I want one so bad I can sniff it. However, I think I'll stick with the mazdaspeed until the RX-8 becomes faster.
p.s. which car do you think handles better the MSP or the 8? Please don't respond if you haven't flogged the MSP. That car is on a damn rail!

You might want to check out canzoomer's posts in the tech forum.
He has allready tweaked out about 25+ hp and lots of torque over most of the RPM range just changing the A/F mapping. (Measured RWHP on the dyno).

I think he plans to run some 1/4 mile times this weekend.

Seems like the RX will respond great to ECU upgrades, (he hasn't even messed with timing yet).

I can't wait, considering since the RX is mostly running rich, the tweaks will probably also help the MPG issue.

Originally posted by Turbo Matty P
wow, a 15.2s quarter mile. My boenstock mazdaspeed protege ran a 15.4s quarter mile stock. After some slight exhaust work and a new intake it would 15.2s I'll go back through my timeslips to see what the rest of the numbers were, but I was under the impression that the RX-8 was faster than the mazdaspeed? Also, it may be a tenth or two faster than a stock mazdaspeed, but a $40 boost controller will seal the deal for the protege. Wow, I'm not trying to knock the 8 in any way. I'm just surprised it's not any faster. I wonder how the two would compare side by side. I know by the numbers that a stock mazdaspeed has more torque at a lower rpm than the 8. Also, with the new flash the msp owners are claiming a much stronger pull. Some claim a 20+hp gain and they have the dyno's to back it up. I think thats great. Also, MSP's are now running for $16K. Again, just to clarify, I love the RX-8. I want one so bad I can sniff it. However, I think I'll stick with the mazdaspeed until the RX-8 becomes faster.
p.s. which car do you think handles better the MSP or the 8? Please don't respond if you haven't flogged the MSP. That car is on a damn rail! I pulled the car into the scale. the car is a little heavy for good quarter mile times using the N/A set up. car with me inside 3252lbs car is beggin for a turbo charge kit.

Not that I know that much about this, but going by that weight and by your times and ET on various online calculators, it puts the power of your car right where Mazda says it should be.

Judge Ito, I agree with what you said....almost. The Rx-8 is pudgy for a good quarter mile car, but for a sporty sedan it's perfectly balanced. My MSP weighs 3Klbs with me in it and the light nimble feel can't be touched by anything else save for a motorcycle. The point I was making was a direct comparison between the two cars since they were so similar. They both weigh approximatly the same, both have the same torque, both have LSD (in most models), both appear to run the exact same times. Both are praised for their handeling prowess. Sport Compact Car was quoted as saying that the mazdaspeed is their new litmus test for all front wheel drive cars. It's THE car to beat. I want to see a professional driver drive a course in both cars to see who pulls a faster lap.

MOD, please take this to lounge, I'm jacking a thread.

Originally posted by Blue 350z


The .1 = .11-.12 it the same on any street car. Think of it this way, if you gain .1 in the first 60' that means your already .1 ahead. The .01-.02 comes from a slightly better trap speed (usually).

And the car slips you just showed could of been a number of things:

1. 2 diffrent cars ran those numbers (1 with the US ECU and 1 with the un-tweaked ECU)
2. On the longer ET its possible a gear was missed if it was the same car
3. Fabricated times or just times from 2 totally diffrent cars (not even RX8)

IMO- Its number 1

The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly. Launches really don't effect trap times much unless its a really bad launch, like excessive spinning or bogging.

It would make sense that a .1 difference at 60' should lead to at least .1 at the end of the 1/4 mile but I would think that a good launch that is up in the revs for a s2000 would be a bit faster since the engine will stay in the meat of it's powerband. Perhaps there are some s2000 owners on the forum who can confirm whether the .1 = .11-.12 rule works for them too?

As mentioned earlier, both runs were reportedly from the same production car (red 90). All of the info is on the rotarynews (http://rotarynews.com/view.php?id=208).

The fastest cars were the "pre production cars that were retrofitted with full-blown production-spec engines". Yellow 44 and Sliver 49 averaged about 14.5 @ 96 mph. The difference in their 1/4 mile times and thier 60' times were about 12.2 to 12.3 secs.

The long-lead press car that Car and Driver, Automobile and Road and Track All used to generate early numbers was called Red31. The one run that was posted was about 14.7 @ 95 mph. The difference in the 1/4 mile time and the 60' time was about 12.3 secs.

The 2 production cars were blue86 and red 90.

Blue86 ran comparitive times that avg'd around 14.66 @ 95.7. The difference in the 1/4 mile times and the 60' times was about 12.37 secs.

Red90 seems to have been the slowest out of the bunch. Perhaps the engine ran a little weaker or it was the heavier GT model? It's best 1/4 mile was around 14.7 @ 95.5 and it's worst was 15.2 @ 94.8. The difference in the 1/4 mile times and the 60' times ranged from 2.35 - 2.39.

Mazda's own testing seems to indicate that the production cars are slightly slower but is difficult to draw valid conclusions from such a small sample size. It would be interesting to see the results of more 1/4 mile slips as time goes on. I would think that most drag racers would choose something like a 350z or Mustang over the RX-8 but I'm sure we'll see a few more RX-8 timeslips in teh coming months.

Brian

i seem to recall that early testing of the S2000 had widely varrying results- if the surface was too grippy the engine would bog on launch and *kill* the times.

i also remember that on the S2000, the 0-60 time went from 5.x seconds to 12 seconds if you shifted at 6K instead of 8K.

15.2 is way slow these days, my bone stock 1994 probe GT can beat that, FWD, 170hp. 14.5 sounds better and might be surface dependent.

james

The Mazdaspeed Protege is a piece of shit. It makes 170 hp with a turbo (!!!) and is slow and hadles well for a FWD but come on that car is a product of Ford's control. A FWD slow piston POS. It makes less power and accelerates slower than the RX8 with a bigger motor AND a turbo.

Originally posted by 14s4doorNA
The Mazdaspeed Protege is a piece of shit. It makes 170 hp with a turbo (!!!) and is slow and hadles well for a FWD but come on that car is a product of Ford's control. A FWD slow piston POS. It makes less power and accelerates slower than the RX8 with a bigger motor AND a turbo.

I wouldn't call the MazdaSpeed a POS, but these days getting 170HP out of a 2.0 4 cyl turbo is pathetic and on Mazda's site they brag about it like its a breakthru!! I used to own a 1990 Eclipse GST and that had 195HP and over 200TQ and that was also a 2.0 turbo and almost 14 year old technology. Also the Mazdaspeed is very heavy for such a small car.

The Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V is making 175HP and 180TQ from a N/A 2.4 4 cyl.. Also putting up better accereration times and is less expensive and comes with lots of options, even brembo's are avail and a 500Watt 9 speaker stereo!!

The only thing good about the Mazdaspeed is that you can mod it easily to get more HP since its FI. But you can go out an get a Neon SRT-4 for the same price if you just want cheap speed.

Well, you can call it slow if you want, but the man is right in that it posts times pretty close, if not the same as the RX-8.

Yeah, it's a turbocharged car, but it's pretty much a cheap kit slapped on to the standard N/A Protege and you can get it all for about $16k. Heck, it doesn't even put out 7psi stock. With a few very simple tweaks from Home Depot and a cheap exhaust, you are running 14 flat with then handling to back it up, since the car (like the RX-8) is not really a drag car. It comes alive in the twisties.

To compare the size of a piston engine and the rotary...well, you should know better than that. It makes no sense, but you know what, from what we have seen posted on this board vs. what we have seen posted on mazdamp3.com, both cars are putting down pretty close wheel horsepower on a dyno and the Protege is close to 200 pounds lighter, so maybe you should think a little bit and do a bit of research before you react.

As for it being a product of Ford's control... well, doesn't Ford control everything that comes out of Mazda anyway? I don't know what you mean by Ford's control. Ford didn't design the chassis, didn't design the engine, didn't design the suspension, heck Callaway did the turbo kit and I thought Callaway was much more of a "GM" man than a "Ford" man.

Anyway, you shouldn't let the man's comments hurt your little pride like that. He did say a bunch of times that he didn't mean to say that the RX-8 sucked or anything.
Neither do I. I happen to love the car.

Originally posted by Blue 350z


I wouldn't call the MazdaSpeed a POS, but these days getting 170HP out of a 2.0 4 cyl turbo is pathetic and on Mazda's site they brag about it like its a breakthru!! I used to own a 1990 Eclipse GST and that had 195HP and over 200TQ and that was also a 2.0 turbo and almost 14 year old technology. Also the Mazdaspeed is very heavy for such a small car.

The Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V is making 175HP and 180TQ from a N/A 2.4 4 cyl.. Also putting up better accereration times and is less expensive and comes with lots of options, even brembo's are avail and a 500Watt 9 speaker stereo!!

The only thing good about the Mazdaspeed is that you can mod it easily to get more HP since its FI. But you can go out an get a Neon SRT-4 for the same price if you just want cheap speed.

Yes, mazdaspeeds protege is a case of too little too late. The upcoming Mazda 3 looks like an AWESOME vehicle. Lets see how it performs but the styling inside and out looks top notch for an affordable class vehicle. :D

Nissan overated , ala mazda, the SE-R spec V but tried to mend the mistake by improving the transmition, the susp. and offering brembo brakes :eek: only one model year after the cars intro.

And yes the NEON SRT4 virtualy makes the turbo protege pointless. More so that the Neon is UNDERATED! from the factory. Its rated at 215hp but puts down close to that to the wheels!! stock!:eek: making it more of a 240hp+ vehicle for 20k, thats unprecedented in the sport compact market.

you have alot of nerve calling it a pos

haters haters, almost the whole lot of ya! The neon SRT-4 is a very fast car. However, you're forgetting one important factor. It's a force-fed NEON. The car has nice seat, but everything else on the interior is garbage, the body kit is garbage (fake ram air?? COME ON!), the exhaust with no mufflers is REDNECK garbage. In a straight line only contest the neon wins hands down, but it'll also smoke the RX-8 so by your logic is the RX-8 a pos? A $19K TRUE 4-door will smoke the $30K RX-8. Forget the fact that 8 is a great handeler, forget that it has a revoltionary motor, forget it's styling and interior feel is decades ahead of dodges, forget that more watts on stereo doesn't always mean it's better, forget this and tell me that the mazdaspeed portege is a pos. I'll see you at the track. To all of the people who hate on the MSP. Bring your $30K car to the track and let's see how well you can justify the extra $13K. I'm not trying to insult any RX-8 owners. I just wanted to ask what you guys thought about the similarities between the two cars. If it's going to turn into a challenge I'm sure the mazdaspeed forum will be more than willing to go out and flog a few laps with you guys. Any going to pick up my gauntlet?

Originally posted by Turbo Matty P
haters haters, almost the whole lot of ya! The neon SRT-4 is a very fast car. However, you're forgetting one important factor. It's a force-fed NEON. The car has nice seat, but everything else on the interior is garbage, the body kit is garbage (fake ram air?? COME ON!), the exhaust with no mufflers is REDNECK garbage. In a straight line only contest the neon wins hands down, but it'll also smoke the RX-8 so by your logic is the RX-8 a pos? A $19K TRUE 4-door will smoke the $30K RX-8. Forget the fact that 8 is a great handeler, forget that it has a revoltionary motor, forget it's styling and interior feel is decades ahead of dodges, forget that more watts on stereo doesn't always mean it's better, forget this and tell me that the mazdaspeed portege is a pos. I'll see you at the track. To all of the people who hate on the MSP. Bring your $30K car to the track and let's see how well you can justify the extra $13K. I'm not trying to insult any RX-8 owners. I just wanted to ask what you guys thought about the similarities between the two cars. If it's going to turn into a challenge I'm sure the mazdaspeed forum will be more than willing to go out and flog a few laps with you guys. Any going to pick up my gauntlet?

uh... how about u remove the turbo from the neon or add a turbo to the rx8? that'd be a bit more fair.

also, you're getting a car with much more potential *i think* than the srt-4. ive heard the neon is pretty tapped out from the factory? correct me if im wrong.

why turbo the Rx-8? Thats what caused all of the problems with the last RX-7. I would personally love to see some weird 4rotor set up that would produce gobs of power. You're correct the neon is strapped from the factory. However, bolt-ons are making more power. Boost on the neon is 3 times what it is on the MSP. It's also coming from a larger turbo. Also, the block in the neon is a 2.4L as opposed to the 2.0L in the protege. Mazda tried to use as much high quality content as it could affordably. Chrysler built a $20K motor and threw it in a POS chasis. It's not a complete package like the MSP or the RX-8. I'm waiting to see what the aftermarket guys do for power on the new renesis. I'm thinking a centrifugal supercharger like a Paxton would be great, but I'm new to the whole rotary thing so I'm not sure. Here's an unusual question.: If the rotor housing and rotors were enlarged 30% over stock (the same motor, just larger) would that "increase displacement? Is there a particular reason for the compact size of the rotary other than weight? Would larger, yet lighter rotors produce more torque? Also, with larger housings Port size would increase drastically. Again I'm assuming, but my point is that it's not going to be nearly as easy to create gobs of power from the renesis as it is the FZ-E with the factory turbo.

Originally posted by Turbo Matty P
why turbo the Rx-8? Thats what caused all of the problems with the last RX-7. I would personally love to see some weird 4rotor set up that would produce gobs of power. You're correct the neon is strapped from the factory. However, bolt-ons are making more power. Boost on the neon is 3 times what it is on the MSP. It's also coming from a larger turbo. Also, the block in the neon is a 2.4L as opposed to the 2.0L in the protege. Mazda tried to use as much high quality content as it could affordably. Chrysler built a $20K motor and threw it in a POS chasis. It's not a complete package like the MSP or the RX-8. I'm waiting to see what the aftermarket guys do for power on the new renesis. I'm thinking a centrifugal supercharger like a Paxton would be great, but I'm new to the whole rotary thing so I'm not sure. Here's an unusual question.: If the rotor housing and rotors were enlarged 30% over stock (the same motor, just larger) would that "increase displacement? Is there a particular reason for the compact size of the rotary other than weight? Would larger, yet lighter rotors produce more torque? Also, with larger housings Port size would increase drastically. Again I'm assuming, but my point is that it's not going to be nearly as easy to create gobs of power from the renesis as it is the FZ-E with the factory turbo.

you're missing the point. when comparing the straight line ability of a car thats NA vs one thats turbocharged, obviously the advantage is with the car thats turbo'd....

if you're so leery about turboing a rotary engine, then remove the turbo from this $20k motor and im sure you'll find it running much slower.

not to say the neon is a bad car or anything... just recognize that although its plenty fast and cheap, its relies on its turbo.

this conversation got real retarded, real fast.
The neon is a piece of crap. Yes it relies on it's turbo. Yes the MSP relies on it's turbo. Yes the RX-8 relies on it's rotary engine. YES the MSP and the RX-8 are equally fast. YES the MSP does it for $15K less than the RX-8. YES the MSP should put down more power because it's turbocharged. Most do. Most owners already have some sort of boost controller, custom exhaust, front mount intercooler etc. and those cars will fly. I said to look at the cars for what they are...I love the RX-8, but my MSP has four FULL doors (not a big deal for me since the freestyle dors work so well and look cool), Seating for 5, has the same performance characteristics as the RX-8, gets MUCH better gas mileage, has cheaper replacement / upgrade parts, costs $15K less.
This is why I'm hanging onto my MSP. I love the 8's, but I can't justify spending double for a car that really doesn't outperform. It's only real advantage now is that it's rotary powered and super sweet looking. to someone who is broke like me that's just not worth the extra money spent.

sucks to be broke

Originally posted by elusiv


uh... how about u remove the turbo from the neon or add a turbo to the rx8? that'd be a bit more fair.

also, you're getting a car with much more potential *i think* than the srt-4. ive heard the neon is pretty tapped out from the factory? correct me if im wrong.


You're very wrong, the SRT-4 is far from rapped out from the factory. Simple bolt-ons and the car is running 12s. Also, it's a pretty good handler for a FWD car, it's not just a straightline performer. If you want bang for the buch it doesn't get much better than the SRT-4, and contrary to popular belief the engine is very very strong with many upgraded parts from it's PT version.
I wouldn't want the car for various reasons but you have to respect what the car can do for so little.

Ike

it is defently priced right

it is priced right, I guess....but look at what you get with dodge and the mazda for the same price. Dodge has a very shotty interior, slightly upgraded suspension, MONDO brakes, no stereo, no power windows or locks, a super cheesy-looking body kit with fake ramair (most redneck upgrade, the psuedo-raim-air) NO GOOD COLOR CHOICES! With the mazda you get a complete package. You get great styling, great interior treatment, great power (although some say overrated) great power potential, great mazda reliability, great stereo, great brakes, best in class suspension, better gas mileage, a more user-friendly daily driver. Dodge will cook in the straigh line, cornering isn't bad, but no LSD and soft springs really give it lots of attitude.
Again, I think it all comes down to the TOTAL PACKAGE. Mazda has provided this with both the RX-8 and the Mazdaspeed Protege. I see the same thing happening with the 3. Mazda is just stepping up to the plate in a big way. They don't ignore things to concentrate on acceleration. They view the car as a whole, not as a chasis to cram a STRESSED motor into. Yes the neon is stressed from the factory. I don't see them lasting very long. I bet a year from now they're littering the dealerships because are sick of this thing being in the shop. Remember the eclipse turbos? good cars until they got some mileage on them .After that you could kiss em goodbye.

Originally posted by IkeWRX



You're very wrong, the SRT-4 is far from rapped out from the factory. Simple bolt-ons and the car is running 12s. Also, it's a pretty good handler for a FWD car, it's not just a straightline performer. If you want bang for the buch it doesn't get much better than the SRT-4, and contrary to popular belief the engine is very very strong with many upgraded parts from it's PT version.
I wouldn't want the car for various reasons but you have to respect what the car can do for so little.

Ike

er, got any specific links? i had no idea srt-4 was capable of 12's with just simple bolt ons. i browsed thru a few forums but couldnt find any time slips.

I'm very leary of the SRT simply for one reason. Chrysler reliability, larger turbo and 3X the boost. I hear the neon has forged pistons, but seruiously....3X the boost? How reliable will this be in 30K miles? On a different note, has anyone heard about major engine problems with the RX-8? My father inlaw says he read somewhere that hundreds of owners were having major engine failure and had to have new engines??!!?? I'm not sure he knew 100% what he was talking about. Can anyone comment on this?

Originally posted by Turbo Matty P
I'm very leary of the SRT simply for one reason. Chrysler reliability, larger turbo and 3X the boost. I hear the neon has forged pistons, but seruiously....3X the boost? How reliable will this be in 30K miles? On a different note, has anyone heard about major engine problems with the RX-8? My father inlaw says he read somewhere that hundreds of owners were having major engine failure and had to have new engines??!!?? I'm not sure he knew 100% what he was talking about. Can anyone comment on this?

Yeah, Im having a major problem with the engine!! I can't seem to be able to find it under the hood!!...that's the only problem I've experienced so far with it. So Im thinking I should go back to my optometrist to get a new prescription for my glasses!

hahaha, no he mentioned some sort of major oil failure or something. I told him about the oil baffles that would trigger a light without injury but he wrote that off. I guess I should say that he's also a 350Z fan.....and I'm doinking his youngest daughter! He's bound to be stand-offish!!

http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107408

12.9 with 1500 in performance mods but that doesn't include the DRs and wheels which are certainly helping quite a bit. The SRT-4 does have power windows, just not in the backseats. As for the SRT-4 vs. the MSP the performance is disgustingly in the SRT-4s favor. We're talking a 7 second difference in 0-100 times, so you had better hope if you think you're going to take out a SRT-4 on a track with an MSP that there are no straights at this track. The brakes are better on the SRT-4 as well. They are both great cars for the price, but performance wise the SRT-4 is in another league.

Originally posted by IkeWRX

As for the SRT-4 vs. the MSP the performance is disgustingly in the SRT-4s favor.

agreed about the MSP, the srt is much more appealing aside from the fact that its a neon.

those times are quite impressive.

the car ran 14.8 with a half way decent launch. just a heads up

Originally posted by elusiv
agreed about the MSP, the srt is much more appealing aside from the fact that its a neon.

those times are quite impressive.

I know, if only dodge could have designed a different body rather than make it look like a supped up Neon :(

Originally posted by vosko
the car ran 14.8 with a half way decent launch. just a heads up


Sorry for the further questioning, but the whole MSP vz Neon discussion lost me. The 8 got a 14.8 1/4th ??
When, where, and who?

Can anyone please tell me what RPM is giving them the best launch? (Sorry if I scrolled over the answer). We finally got her out to the track last night. We have 19' rims, totally stock...and we got 15.8. I KNOW the 8 has sooo much more potential than what we ran . This is our first rotary, so there is much to be learned. I am used to our 3rd gen Eclipse which is launched best in the 2 grand. When we did that in the 8 she CRAWLED off the line, I could tell that she wants something else, but I don't know what. After our last launch someone said that he launches his 7 in the 5 grand. Too bad...they shut the track down before we got another run.
Help please! ;)

Originally posted by RX8-TX
Sorry for the further questioning, but the whole MSP vz Neon discussion lost me. The 8 got a 14.8 1/4th ??
When, where, and who?

same car, englishtown, DSC off fully. judge ito owner of the car driving. he fully believes as do i the car can do a 14.5 and high 13's with simply exhaust work , intake and drag tires :)

15.8???????? Ive never even been to the track and i just learned stick about a month ago and ill bet anything i could beat that in my 8. You gotta launch at leat 5k and if you want the absolute best results, launch at 8500 and youll get 14.5.

Originally posted by RussellP
15.8???????? Ive never even been to the track and i just learned stick about a month ago and ill bet anything i could beat that in my 8. You gotta launch at leat 5k and if you want the absolute best results, launch at 8500 and youll get 14.5.

Yeah just launch at 8500 and you'll get a 14.5 it's just that simple...

/sarcasm off

Originally posted by vosko
same car, englishtown, DSC off fully. judge ito owner of the car driving. he fully believes as do i the car can do a 14.5 and high 13's with simply exhaust work , intake and drag tires :)

LOL :p

350
just can't find a life of your own:D

Originally posted by Mrs. SHOWOFF
Can anyone please tell me what RPM is giving them the best launch? (Sorry if I scrolled over the answer). We finally got her out to the track last night. We have 19' rims, totally stock...and we got 15.8. I KNOW the 8 has sooo much more potential than what we ran . This is our first rotary, so there is much to be learned. I am used to our 3rd gen Eclipse which is launched best in the 2 grand. When we did that in the 8 she CRAWLED off the line, I could tell that she wants something else, but I don't know what. After our last launch someone said that he launches his 7 in the 5 grand. Too bad...they shut the track down before we got another run.
Help please! ;)

the simple answer is let me drive the car ;)

Originally posted by Blue 350z
LOL :p

umm why is that funny ?

I am dissappointed and in disbelief. I drive a 96 MX-6 M-edition with minor modifications (intake, exhaust, suspension, and 215/45/17 S-03's). I will get a timeslip as soon as it finally cools off a little in Phoenix (it's still hitting a 100!), but I am fairly certain a 15.2 is obtainable. There are hundreds of similar setup mx6's and probes with scanned timeslips to back that up at mx6.com and probetalk.

I guess it was over a month ago now, but I test drove the crap out of a demo RX-8 and then drove my car down the same roads within minutes of stepping out of the 8. The RX-8 felt much much faster. It wasn't even a comparison.

Granted I needed to drop the clutch at about 8000 with DSC off to not bog off the line, but it is hard to imagine the two cars posting similar ETs. The kicker is that when I returned to the dealership I realized I had left the A/C on the entire time.

I guess there are variations in the production line, but either this demo car was a fluke, or I have a 16 second MX-6. Neither seem that likely.

The main goal in buying the RX-8 was to have something that could beat those damn 350Z's and turbo 4's that are popping up everywhere without putting major bucks into my six. If these posted 1/4 times are an accurrate display of the car's capabilities, I am really glad I didn't bring the yellow one home that day.

someone else on this board got a 14.5 the other day though he was using 100 octane gas. He thinks he could get 14.3.

Originally posted by jdwk

Granted I needed to drop the clutch at about 8000 with DSC off to not bog off the line, but it is hard to imagine the two cars posting similar ETs. The kicker is that when I returned to the dealership I realized I had left the A/C on the entire time.

*snip*

The main goal in buying the RX-8 was to have something that could beat those damn 350Z's and turbo 4's that are popping up everywhere without putting major bucks into my six. If these posted 1/4 times are an accurrate display of the car's capabilities, I am really glad I didn't bring the yellow one home that day.


ive never had to drop it from 8k to not "bog" off the line let alone need to do it all of the time. the ac compressor kicks off at 65% wot, so most of the time it probably wasn't a problem during your test drive.

the reported production rx-8 times were never better than the z's so if that was what you wanted you should look to another car or save up for some mods.

I realize that the numbers put the RX-8 behind the 350Z and even the SRT-4 (god help us) and far behind the STi and Evo. However, it's more fun if you aren't supposed to win, and I doubt I would be able leave the car stock for very long even if it put me in BSP.

However, 16 year old kids are breaking 14 with a stock neon while the RX-8 apparantly takes skill to break 15. I realize there are many aspects to a car besides 1/4 mile times, but it is disappointing nevertheless.

Hopefully, Mazda gets a turbocharged Renesis out soon.

breaking into 14's with stock neon. Ok?
That was good for a smile. Funny how some members post mid 14's on here for 1/4 times for the 8, and people look for reasons to disbelieve, yet the negative things are always brought out to focus?? Some of the times we have seen are exactly what the R & T got, Car and Driver, Euro Mags etc, yet we still want to find fault??? Wow

A simple fuel controller on the 8 will get 25+hp. Add that to an already great car, and you can keep up, and possible beat alot of good cars. The 350 is no doubt a fast car, same with the EVO etc. but looks like some guys on here are creating so much noise, it is taking away from good chat about the car?
Sorry for the refute, but tired of all the BS on here, and reading it in almost every thread. There is so much evidence out there showing good 0-60 and quarter mile times, yet that is all dismissed ?

Broker obviously knows nothing about cars. I have seed SRT4 neons getting as low as 13.7@103 stock. Not bad for a car thats under 20k. On average they are getting about 14.0-14.2

Originally posted by Broker73
but looks like some guys on here are creating so much noise, it is taking away from good chat about the car?
Sorry for the refute, but tired of all the BS on here, and reading it in almost every thread.

My thoughts exactly..... Where are the Mods???? Why do they let the yang talking TROLLS dominate the posts with all the Trash talk about the RX-8???

I just don't get why these guys hang out on the RX-8 forum.

I agree the new neon is fast in a straight line, but I would much rather pay the difference and get an RX8. there's no comparison. Mazdas (not just RX8's) are drivers cars. From the miata, to the 6, to the mazdaspeed protege, to the P5, and the RX8....mazda just makes some of the best, most complete cars on the market. How many commas did I use in that sentance? Was that een close to correct??

Moderator Edit

No blue. Your baiting a very small group with trollish crap and making an ass of yourself to the other few thousand members.

Keep it up. I am glad your so easy to amuse. Must be nice being that simple.

there have been posts on here showing mid 14 quarter mile times. Why such a huge desire to bash?
I feel sorry for you if you have nothing better to do than post on a forum where you don't own the car, and apparently have no interest in. I imagine though if you keep it up it won't last for long.

Look on the Tech forum I think??
Member showed runs of 14.1-14.6? I think I am close
best 0-60 was 6.01?
He posted his graphs

Goodbye poor soul

Originally posted by Broker73
there have been posts on here showing mid 14 quarter mile times. Why such a huge desire to bash?
I feel sorry for you if you have nothing better to do than post on a forum where you don't own the car, and apparently have no interest in. I imagine though if you keep it up it won't last for long.

Look on the Tech forum I think??
Member showed runs of 14.1-14.6? I think I am close
best 0-60 was 6.01?
He posted his graphs

Goodbye poor soul

For the last time that was a freaking Gtech run! There has been 1 1/4 mile run from an actual owner that we know of, and the rest are high 14s and low 15s.

My intention was not to bash the RX-8 in any way. I am a HUGE Mazda fan and have owned and currently own nothing but Mazdas. My 30 minutes or so in the eight were absolutely amazing. I don't own the car, but I have followed it since it's RX Evolve concept days and feel somewhat connected to it. Nobody brings emotion to a car like Mazda.

However, this is the Racing forum, and from all the posts and articles I have read across the internet, the RX-8 would lose without question to an SRT-4 in the 1/4 mile with equal matched drivers. It's unfortunate but a straight up fact that a sub 20k Neon is faster in a straight line than Mazda's flagship.

Autocross of course is a different story.

So what an SRT would lose to a corvette which would lose to a viper. Theres always faster cars. What about all the cars an 8 can beat? Audi TT, S2K, Z4 (except M series), 325 and maybe 330.

yes, the lastest car and driver had the Neon from 0-60 in 5.6sec, and the 1/4mile in 14.2

RX8 0-60 in 5.9, and 1/4mile in mid 14's

so ok, has the edge there, but those numbers for the neon are the same as the 350Z almost to a tee. Maybe I should go the a 350Z forum and bug them about how the 20K Neon has the same numbers. HAHA

And I think the 350 is a few thousand more than the 8? :p

What is funny is how the car mag times for the 350, S2K or whatever, are talked about so frequently, yet the same people won't accept the 8 does 0-60 in about 6sec, and the 1/4 in mid 14's. I don't care what a few posts say about 15+ sec runs. Do you think every Joe Blow runs a 350 in low 14's??

All great cars, but come on guys.

lets see how a neon hangs on the twisties and lets see how many chicks one can pick up in a neon.

Originally posted by RussellP
lets see how a neon hangs on the twisties and lets see how many chicks one can pick up in a neon.

This isn't a forum about how to pick up chicks, it's about cars, some of us don't need our car to "pick up chicks" nor do we want a "chick" that cares what kind of car we drive. The SRT-4 is quite capable in the twisties and handles rather well for a FWD car. Owners are regularly running 13.9s stock and have no problems matching mag times.

Originally posted by jdwk
My intention was not to bash the RX-8 in any way. I am a HUGE Mazda fan and have owned and currently own nothing but Mazdas. My 30 minutes or so in the eight were absolutely amazing. I don't own the car, but I have followed it since it's RX Evolve concept days and feel somewhat connected to it. Nobody brings emotion to a car like Mazda.

However, this is the Racing forum, and from all the posts and articles I have read across the internet, the RX-8 would lose without question to an SRT-4 in the 1/4 mile with equal matched drivers. It's unfortunate but a straight up fact that a sub 20k Neon is faster in a straight line than Mazda's flagship.

Autocross of course is a different story.

Hey listen, a Voyager is faster than a V8 Camaro...so anything can happen. Don't you think?

A K car (thanks Ike) is (can be made) fast. NEON SRT4 can be fast like heck, the Subi & Mitsu variants are out of discussion & Nissan 350Z is fast. So what?? a f'g TANK runs to 80mph pretty darn quick...

Stop this stupid argument. Does anyone have any doubt the 8 can attain Mag. numbers in stock form? It will not improve over them (without tuning) SO WHAT!

Cut the crap. Congratulate Jude Ito for punishing his 8 (you gotta have gutts!) and GO TAKE A HIKE (whoever feels like it)

Whats the point in discussing something with this guy?? replying?? for what?? hes just having fun with all of you. Leave him (and others) alone, and they'll either go away or civilize themselves.

Hey RX8-TX! I have a new video or two for you, hit me up on AIM :) I'll respond if I'm not out hiking :p

Road and Track has the car listed at 14.5 in the 1/4 at 350ft, 69 deg, and 50% humidity.
Environmental factors do play a role. However, most of the time, owners are able to achieve faster than R&T times because of break in and ample experience with tthe car. In some cases much faster. I think R&T has the Z06 at 13.0 and there are guys (Z06vette.com) with timeslips under 12 bone stock.

I am happy that Judge Ito was able to get the claimed 14.5, although unhappy that he did it on high octane. Regardless of whether it made the car faster or slower, R&T did there run on pump gas.

It's just a simple matter of more guys getting their eights to the track. The more timeslips we see, the better judgement can be made as to it's true potential.

Although I will get reemed for this, I think the whole ECU remapping theory is true. I think that is why Road and Track had no problem with a 14.5 and observed 19mpg (R&T usually gets under the city driving rating). Their car was pre-production.

Well...so much for the RX8 being a mid 14 sec car.

I was at Moroso last night and there was a RX-8 there. A girl was driving it and her husband had a badass low 12 sec RX-7. She couldn't break out of the 16s...16.7, 16.5, etc. Well her and her husband switch cars..he nets a 15.7, 15.5...weak. She drove the RX-7 to a 12.7, not too shabby.

I asked her how she liked the car, said she loved it and that it handled amazing, but definately wasn't as fast as Mazda claimed. She said she likes her 3 other RX-7s much more. She did have some nice looking wheels on it though.

So, the RX-8 definately isnt a mid 14sec car...maybe of you use a GTech it is..but in the real world the only way to get a 14sec pass is to beat the hell out of it and run race gas...sounds like a load of fun.....not.:p

Yep, 19PSI, your post proves it. Not.

Originally posted by 19psi_GTI
...sounds like a load of fun.....not.:p

I respect your opinion...now, respect mine: dickhead. :p

Originally posted by Chuck Clifford
Yep, 19PSI, your post proves it. Not.

My post might not prove it, but the TRAP TIMES do. Show me one RX-8 that is trapping anywhere near 97+mph...which is what a mid 14sec car trap at...Go ahead, prove me wrong...and dont show me someones Gtech time or a time running race gas, lol.

Originally posted by RX8-TX
I respect your opinion...now, respect mine: dickhead. :p

I have no problem respecting someones opinion...what i dont respect is people spouting off their opinion as if it is a fact. Ie: the RSX-S comment.:p

Okay 19PSI, here my take on your little track story. You have friends with an 11 second badass RX-7 that they consistently run low to high 12s in. They now have a mid 14 RX-8 that they now run 15's and 16's in. Whats your point.

There has already been a first time 1/4 miler in an RX-8 run 15.2 with many admitted mistakes, on pump gas, who is already a half a second better than your RX-7 friend, who appears to be wasting a lot of time and money at the drag strip.

Strip times are as much a part of the technique and driver as autox is. I'm seeing RX-8's beat experienced evo's, WRX's, and Z06's on their first time running their 8 at an autox. Its all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time.

You have no proof except a story of a man running an RX-8 very slow, and his wife running it even slower.

Originally posted by 19psi_GTI
I have no problem respecting someones opinion...what i dont respect is people spouting off their opinion as if it is a fact. Ie: the RSX-S comment.:p

I didn't comment about any RSX-S; as a matter of fact, I have very little comments about cars I DO NOT OWN (or didn't own)

If you have difficulties with someONE making a comment, direct you comment to that person, don't mess around with the car (I don't appreciate it, and many more do not as well)

If you have any first hand experience, then feel free to comment about it.

Originally posted by 19psi_GTI
My post might not prove it, but the TRAP TIMES do. Show me one RX-8 that is trapping anywhere near 97+mph...which is what a mid 14sec car trap at...Go ahead, prove me wrong...and dont show me someones Gtech time or a time running race gas, lol.


Look at all these 1/4 mile times. Only 2 of these times are from an RX-8, but as you can see, whichever they are do not stand out abnormally from the rest. Seems like a lot of examples of runs that don't conform to your rule. They all also have in common that they have great traction (all are on street tires too).

The fastest trap speed on the list is a 95.92 and the ET for that one is a 14.33



14.521@92.83 1.978 60ft
14.533@93.99 1.971 60ft
14.568@91.316 1.989 60ft
14.679@91.52 1.958 60ft
14.49@96 1.965 60ft
14.57@94.07 2.17 60ft
14.66@93.33 1.98 60ft
14.408@92.99 2.019 60ft
14.48@91.12 2.03 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.75@91.49 2.045 60ft
14.802@92.51 2.199 60ft
14.840@90.26 2.107 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.379@94.07 1.998 60ft
14.334@95.92 2.041 60ft

Originally posted by Chuck Clifford
Okay 19PSI, here my take on your little track story. You have friends with an 11 second badass RX-7 that they consistently run low to high 12s in. They now have a mid 14 RX-8 that they now run 15's and 16's in. Whats your point.

There has already been a first time 1/4 miler in an RX-8 run 15.2 with many admitted mistakes, on pump gas, who is already a half a second better than your RX-7 friend, who appears to be wasting a lot of time and money at the drag strip.

Strip times are as much a part of the technique and driver as autox is. I'm seeing RX-8's beat experienced evo's, WRX's, and Z06's on their first time running their 8 at an autox. Its all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time.

You have no proof except a story of a man running an RX-8 very slow, and his wife running it even slower.

I hope you are not saying the RX8 (in stock form at least) is a better autocross car than the EVO?

The EVO has done very well so far as indicated by the following example:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34644&highlight=autocross

Read what you quoted:

"Strip times are as much a part of the technique and driver as autox is. I'm seeing RX-8's beat experienced evo's, WRX's, and Z06's on their first time running their 8 at an autox. Its all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time."

As much a part of the technique and driver...

...It's all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time."

It's pretty obvious that he is not saying that one car is better than the other at anything. He is saying that a car can perform better than another one at any given moment due to variables like the driver.

By the way, your link doesn't do anything to disprove that the RX-8 might be a better autocross car than the EVO. ;)

Originally posted by O.R.A.
Read what you quoted:

"Strip times are as much a part of the technique and driver as autox is. I'm seeing RX-8's beat experienced evo's, WRX's, and Z06's on their first time running their 8 at an autox. Its all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time."

As much a part of the technique and driver...

...It's all very ambiguous and relative to nothing but that day and time."

It's pretty obvious that he is not saying that one car is better than the other at anything. He is saying that a car can perform better than another one at any given moment due to variables like the driver.

By the way, your link doesn't do anything to disprove that the RX-8 might be a better autocross car than the EVO. ;)

How about this one:

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39491&highlight=solo+class


Isn't the EVO in a higher class?

Were there any RX-8 competing in Street Prepared?

I'm not saying that the EVO is or isn't a good autocross car or that it is better or not than the RX-8. I'm just saying that what he said is that a good driver makes much more of a difference, and I also say that there is no proof either way...yet.

SCCA initial classing is based on their perception based on the specs of the car. The EVO *should* be better "all else being equal".

The RX-8 who's autox results are posted on this forum, beat all cars in all stock classes on one day. And all but one on a second day. There was a very large field of cars. That was my point. 1/4 mile, like autox is very ambiguous at best. I can post just as many slow Evo autox results as you can post fast. Does that mean the fast evo times are freak cars, and the slows times are lemons? No, it means some people couldn't get an airplane off the ground, others could.

Originally posted by O.R.A.
Were there any RX-8 competing in Street Prepared?

I'm not saying that the EVO is or isn't a good autocross car or that it is better or not than the RX-8. I'm just saying that what he said is that a good driver makes much more of a difference, and I also say that there is no proof either way...yet.

SCCA initial classing is based on their perception based on the specs of the car. The EVO *should* be better "all else being equal".

Well, I'm not an SCCA autocross guru, but on a number of forums I have come across the EVOs doing extremely well.

I totally agree with you on the driver ability part.

Ok,
Attached is a link of the Solo II National results:

http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2003/results/Nationals.pdf

An EVO and an STI are in the thick of it in A Stock. Again, that's very impressiive considering these cars had just come out.

I think the RX8 is in B Stock or lower. Yes, driver ability and the initial classifications are big variables, but I think most people would see the EVO and STI as more competitive than the RX8.

a member on here whooped an STi and M3 with an RX8 so i think you are wrong. RX8 handles better.

Originally posted by RussellP
a member on here whooped an STi and M3 with an RX8 so i think you are wrong. RX8 handles better.

Here we are talking about driver variability being the biggest factor in autocross and you use one example to say the RX8 handles better!

How about the fact that the RX8 perfomed worse than the G35 Coupe and Cobra on the Streets of Willow Road course? Perhaps, the RX8s mediocre slalom tests? What about the Best Motoring video last spring?

Being in a "higher" class doesn't exactly mean it is more competitive. Competitive is measured against cars in it's own class. Anyway, this is so beyond the point. No one is saying that the EVO is a bad autocross car.

By the way, check out the results of CS compared to AS.

I find it hard to believe someone with ANY kind of Auto-X skill couldn't outrun the RX8 in an Evo8. Hell if you could just find 2 straights it wouldn't matter what you do in a turn.

Originally posted by Turbo Matty P
I find it hard to believe someone with ANY kind of Auto-X skill couldn't outrun the RX8 in an Evo8. Hell if you could just find 2 straights it wouldn't matter what you do in a turn.

I dont quite believe that, cornering is at least as important as straight line speed.

Theres a great video of a lotus elise racing a big v8 american car type thing (I think it was a dodge viper, could have been a corvette). This was round the ring (nurenburg) plenty of traights and corners, neither could get away from the other, predictably the v8 pulled on the straights, elise caught up on the corners.

Evo8 sure has more HP than the RX-8 (thers now a factory 330bhp version in UK) but its hevier, and extra HP cannot make up for that round corners.

and its ugly

Originally posted by RobDickinson
I dont quite believe that, cornering is at least as important as straight line speed.

Theres a great video of a lotus elise racing a big v8 american car type thing (I think it was a dodge viper, could have been a corvette). This was round the ring (nurenburg) plenty of traights and corners, neither could get away from the other, predictably the v8 pulled on the straights, elise caught up on the corners.

Evo8 sure has more HP than the RX-8 (thers now a factory 330bhp version in UK) but its hevier, and extra HP cannot make up for that round corners.

So would my 2,300 lb. Escort destroy the RX8 in the corners?;) I am a huge fan of low weight, but a stiff chassis, quick steering and lots of traction also go a long way.

Originally posted by revhappy
So would my 2,300 lb. Escort destroy the RX8 in the corners?;) I am a huge fan of low weight, but a stiff chassis, quick steering and lots of traction also go a long way.

Which the RX-8 has a plenty.

But the important thing is with the same stiff chassis, quick steering and tracion, the lighter car will always go round corners and accelerate quicker.

HP can offset the acceleration at a cost of extra weight, but cant help cornering.

Originally posted by revhappy
So would my 2,300 lb. Escort destroy the RX8 in the corners?;) I am a huge fan of low weight, but a stiff chassis, quick steering and lots of traction also go a long way.

to simply add to my # of posts: The Escort rulez!
Oh, yeah!..the subject: How can we compare the 2 cars??? (the 8 and the Mitsu, that is)

Someone said that a member in his 8 destroyed an Evo and something else: well, maybe the driver of the Evo was not as good as the one on the RX8. That counts a lot from what I've seen.

Do you all think the RX8 will have the same times around the track as the Evo, under the same conditions? I can guess. But I don't know. So until they are put one against the other several times with different drivers and venues...I won't risk saying anything.

Ohhhhh! and I thought this was a quarter mile thread originally. What happened??? How did we end up bashing a Mitsubishi??

Originally posted by RobDickinson
cornering is at least as important as straight line speed.


I agree with you.

Getting things back on (1/4 mile) track (quit trying to pick an EVO fight...):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 19psi_GTI
My post might not prove it, but the TRAP TIMES do. Show me one RX-8 that is trapping anywhere near 97+mph...which is what a mid 14sec car trap at...Go ahead, prove me wrong...and dont show me someones Gtech time or a time running race gas, lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Look at all these 1/4 mile times. Only 2 of these times are from an RX-8, but as you can see, whichever they are do not stand out abnormally from the rest. Seems like a lot of examples of runs that don't conform to your rule. They all also have in common that they have great traction (all are on street tires too).

The fastest trap speed on the list is a 95.92 and the ET for that one is a 14.33



14.521@92.83 1.978 60ft
14.533@93.99 1.971 60ft
14.568@91.316 1.989 60ft
14.679@91.52 1.958 60ft
14.49@96 1.965 60ft
14.57@94.07 2.17 60ft
14.66@93.33 1.98 60ft
14.408@92.99 2.019 60ft
14.48@91.12 2.03 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.75@91.49 2.045 60ft
14.802@92.51 2.199 60ft
14.840@90.26 2.107 60ft
14.492@93.60 2.016 60ft
14.379@94.07 1.998 60ft
14.334@95.92 2.041 60ft

Originally posted by RobDickinson
Which the RX-8 has a plenty.

But the important thing is with the same stiff chassis, quick steering and tracion, the lighter car will always go round corners and accelerate quicker.

HP can offset the acceleration at a cost of extra weight, but cant help cornering.

Ok, Rob, I see where you are going here. You are controlling for other variables (i.e. traction, chassis stiffness, steering, etc.) and I agree with that point regarding weight.

Originally posted by RX8-TX
to simply add to my # of posts: The Escort rulez!
Oh, yeah!..the subject: How can we compare the 2 cars??? (the 8 and the Mitsu, that is)

Someone said that a member in his 8 destroyed an Evo and something else: well, maybe the driver of the Evo was not as good as the one on the RX8. That counts a lot from what I've seen.

Do you all think the RX8 will have the same times around the track as the Evo, under the same conditions? I can guess. But I don't know. So until they are put one against the other several times with different drivers and venues...I won't risk saying anything.

Ohhhhh! and I thought this was a quarter mile thread originally. What happened??? How did we end up bashing a Mitsubishi??

Hi Rx8-TX,
I completely agree that driver ability plays a huge role in autocross. However, on just about any track, with similar drivers, I'd expect the EVO to win.

Originally posted by revhappy
Hi Rx8-TX,
I completely agree that driver ability plays a huge role in autocross. However, on just about any track, with similar drivers, I'd expect the EVO to win.

As of today: the numbers (spec's) suggest the Evo has more than an 'edge' on the 8. Agreed!

Here is my take on this. Mazda f'ed up. The car they sent to the mags had 249 hp which equals a 14.5 with no problem. I re-read the articles from both C&D and R&T.

But when the production vehicles hit emissions they didn't pass. The only solution they can come up with and not piss off all the pre-order customers is an ECU remap. Of course, this lowers hp to 238, which Mazda even changed on their website at the end of August.

Apparantly the lowering of the claimed HP was Mazda's fix. I am sure they are currently working on a way to pass emissions and still keep all the ponies, but I doubt they will issue a fix for this first production run.

What prevented Mazda from testing the emissions before taking preorders at 249? Who knows, but I think it was a very critical mistake. A few tenths in the 1/4 is a huge difference at the strip.

On 19psi's claim, I highly doubt a guy with a 12 sec RX-7 is an unskilled driver. He is at least good enough to match mag numbers. So something is really messed up with that RX-8. Or 19psi needs glasses. I guess it could have been an auto though.

This isn't an autocross thread, but from my driving experience, the RX-8 would do extremely well for a number of reasons. Besides it's obvious rigidity, it is geared perfectly thanks to it's stratospheric redline. Some cars really need to hit third, and some cars need to drop to first, but the RX-8 has a pretty flat torque curve from 2000 to 9000. There was a Nordic Green eight at the last race I attended, but he didn't run.

As a side note, I saw a black one with the full appearance package yesterday and I about lost it. I am totally in love with the car. Unfortunately, it's not what I am looking for in terms of flat out speed. I can't wait for the RX-7.

Damn, I wrote this without really reading the last several posts. When and why did we start an EVO argument in a 1/4 mile thread?

Originally posted by jdwk
Damn, I wrote this without really reading the last several posts. When and why did we start an EVO argument in a 1/4 mile thread?
I asked the same question..:o

Originally posted by Blue 350z
Not to be an ass but your dreaming if you really think you can improve from a 15.2 to a 14.5 (0.7 diff!!) with a "perfect launch" and get a 14.5... I'd say it would be hard to do much better then a 2.100 60' with an rx8 given the power it has, even given your dyno your car is getting about 10HP to the wheels more then most others I have seen. My best 60' EVER in my 350z in about 20 runs was a 2.047, 2nd best was a 2.12, most are in the 2.18-2.25 range.

With even a 2.10 60' (on your car with above average dynos) your car will most likely not see any better then a 14.900. I been in the drag racing numbers game awhile, and I seen enough slips to know that this is how it works. Another guy on this site posted a time slip of a 15.16@91.95 with a 2.16 60', as you can see with a much better 60' he still only got a 15.16, more comparative to the average RX8 dynos seen, he would need close to a 2.0 60 for a run that would crack into the 14's

Like I said, not trying to be an ass, just pointing out facts from dreams. Nobody thats getting a 2.36 60' is gonna improve .7 by running a 2.05-2.1 60' (perfect launch).

FYI: As a rule of thumb, about a .1 decrease in your 60' will decrease your 1/4 ET by about .11-.12. So giving your times vs 60's, for you to have a legitimate shot at a 14.5 ET, you would need a 1.7 60', and even most high powered AWD cars such as the Subaru STI and Evo are getting 1.8-1.9's on average

So to crack into the 14's (like 14.99) on your peticular car, shoot for a 2.10-2.15, it will be good for a 14.9xx run. Most other RX8's I have seen numbers from with average dynos would need closer to a 2.0-2.05 to crack into the 14's.


I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, but I do find interesting reading this after the same car ran a 1.98 60 ft and also a 14.54 1/4 mile time.

Any comments?

Originally posted by O.R.A.
14.49@96 1.965 60ft


i completely agree wityh your post except the fastest speed is the one i highlighted here

The whole intent of O.R.A. post was to refute the crap that IKE, Blu350z and others have been spouting about trap speed determines your ET. They have been saying that there is no way that a trap of 91 or 92 could turn a mid 14. As soon as you call their bull with numbers, they drop off the thread, like they were never here. Judging by the silence of a few members, I think O.R.A's point was well made. Thank you O.R.A.

Huh? I didn't really see a point made bu O.R.A. that I would disagree with at least. Show me where I said trap speed determines your ET. I of all people would not say that because I drive an AWD car and AWD cars tend to trap low. Let me remind you, we still have yet to see slips and a run with non race gas that is in the mid 14s.

I was just pointing out that it seems that the RX-8 is able to do some pretty good launches for a RWD car.

It has great traction. Various people have mentioned how they've had problems coming off the line with the car because of having too much traction.

The rest of the times on my list are from WRX's.

A great launch will mess up the "you will need to trap at XX mph for a YY 1/4 mile time" comments, as you can see by the RX-8 and WRX numbers.

As for the whole power issue, I think that the RX-8 power numbers are still being overrated by Mazda. I also think that the car can do high to mid 14's completely stock and mazda "gets away with this" because of the car's traction. Obviously it will require a great launch and it is not as easy to get a great launch in the car, just like the S2000 (or the WRX, for that matter).

Sorry Ike, it wasn't you this time. Many others have been spouting gospel about trap=ET. That correlation is apparently not true. So hopefully it will stop being mentioned on this and other threads as absolute.

Ike your silence on this trap=ET, spoke volumns. I knew I could make it your fault. :D :D :D

Originally posted by Chuck Clifford
Sorry Ike, it wasn't you this time. Many others have been spouting gospel about trap=ET. That correlation is apparently not true. So hopefully it will stop being mentioned on this and other threads as absolute.

Ike your silence on this trap=ET, spoke volumns. I knew I could make it your fault. :D :D :D

Weren't they saying that Trap speed is an indication on whp ?

>I find it hard to believe someone with ANY kind of Auto-X skill
>couldn't outrun the RX8 in an Evo8. Hell if you could just find 2
>straights it wouldn't matter what you do in a turn.

evo is AWD, which is never going to beat a good RWD car in autox.

bring your evo to any SFR-SCCA autox event, and ill put down money on beating every evo there (prep and tires being comparable).

james

Originally posted by O.R.A.
I was just pointing out that it seems that the RX-8 is able to do some pretty good launches for a RWD car.

It has great traction. Various people have mentioned how they've had problems coming off the line with the car because of having too much traction.

The rest of the times on my list are from WRX's.

A great launch will mess up the "you will need to trap at XX mph for a YY 1/4 mile time" comments, as you can see by the RX-8 and WRX numbers.

As for the whole power issue, I think that the RX-8 power numbers are still being overrated by Mazda. I also think that the car can do high to mid 14's completely stock and mazda "gets away with this" because of the car's traction. Obviously it will require a great launch and it is not as easy to get a great launch in the car, just like the S2000 (or the WRX, for that matter).

The problem is those aren't very good WRX launches and times, and comparing a bunch of numbers like that without knowing temperature/humidity doesn't really make an effective point. I see what you're getting at though, and the launch on an AWD car or low torque car really does make or break the run. While cars such as the 350Z where there is a lot of torque there is much more room for error.

I agree with your last statement, and I think the mid 14 runs will be few and far between. You're not going to see many people getting 1.9 60' with the RX-8 and I still believe Judge Ito was helped in those runs by the race gas. I think he would agree, why else would he chose to use the race gas.

Ike

NO RX8-TX, the statement was not made WHP versus trap speed. Here is what blu350z said.

"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."

Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.

Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.

Originally posted by Chuck Clifford
NO RX8-TX, the statement was not made WHP versus trap speed. Here is what blu350z said.

"The think you need to know is traps vs 1/4 ET. 90-93mph traps are not going to get you much better then low 15's, at least consistantly."

Then O.R.A showed past results completely disproving this supposed (according to blu350z) fact.

Blu350z always says, I just give you the facts, and you call me a troll.

HE shoulnd have used the word always. In AWD cars or RWD cars with a good 60ft time in the 1.8-2.1 sec range you will get 14.4-14.7 sec 1/4 mile time with a 91-94mph trap speed. I have seen a 13.9 with a 95mph trap speed in a wrx. On my jetta i got a best of 14.90 at 92.9 mph with a 2.19 60ft.

It seems the RX8 is very capable of getting very good 60 ft times. But that is only good for standing starts. On the highway, good launches are taken out of the equation. Power takes over. And MPH in the 1/4 is the clasic tale tale of power (with good shifting ability of course)

Regardless of how fast/slow the rx8 is I think its a nice alternative to the G35 coupe (both seat 4 persons). Even if the RX8 is slower its MUCH more distinctive and unique. I got to closely examine and sit in a gorgeous silver ext. black int. RX8 this weekend and really liked the comfort of the seats in front, the controls and the space inside. And im 6-3. The interior is much much nicer than the one in a 350z.

I compared them side by side since the two cars were at my friends performance shop. Next to them was an M3 and an EVO. The EVO is pure function and utilitarian. Its meant to go fast, stop fast and handle great. It has boy racer looks and econo interior. Similar to a subaru (EVO exterior is nicer than the wrx imho).

The M3 well what can i say, its expensive.

So if i was between the RX8 and the 350z i would take the RX8 for daily use no doubt. Both at the same price. If I wanted a car for racing mostly well the 350z is better for that purpose. It is faster. But the RX8 looks a lot better inside. Is more comfy and more practical but it is slower. WIth a well rounded package like the one in the rx8 maybe slow or not so fast isnt such a bad thing as long as one recognizes its limitations.

350z go seems to know what he's saying in general, but you cannot provide a rule of thumb for correlating changes in 60' times to either ET or trap speed. (also, you said that evo's and STi average 1.8-1.9, how did you obtain data to produce such an average. This sounds high to me. My lightly modded awd talon runs consistent 1.7's on extremely poor tires, with a best of 1.61).

If you read books by those who have truly been in the buisness for a long time, and are very experienced, they will never quote a number such as you did, becuase it can't be done. I definitely see more of a benefit in my et than .11-.12 for every tenth decrease in 60' time. There are far to many variables from one car to another to make this generalization. Furthermore, I'm suprised that you see only .11 gain for a .1 decrease in a 350z's 60'. Thinking in terms of kinematics, whatever additional speed enables you to reach the 60' mark .1 seconds quicker, you are traveling that additional speed (although rather small) for the entire length of the track. Anyway...

The bottom line is, you can't make such a generaliztion for all cars.

BTW

I happen to think both the mazdaspeed protege and the RX8 are pretty sweet. I can't believe people get caught up in piston vs rotor... zoom zoom

Just a heads up 8 owners.....the MSP guys are dipping into the 13's right now with the stock turbos. Look out!