I was on mazda's website and i saw that the projected torque was said to be 159. I thought it was supossed to be somewhere in the 160 range.

Here is the chart


Overall length 174.6 in.
Overall width 69.7 in.
Overall height 52.8 in.
Wheelbase 106.3 in.
Track (front/rear) 59.1 in. / 59.3 in.
Seating capacity 4 persons
Engine Water-cooled, two-rotor
Transmission 6-speed manual
Suspension Double-wishbone/Multi-link (front/rear)
Brakes Ventilated disc (front & rear)
Tires 225/45ZR18 (front & rear)
Wheels 18 x 8JJ (front & rear)
Engine Displacement 1.3L
HP/RPM 250@8500 rpm (targeted)
Torque/RPM 159@7500 rpm (targeted)

I saw the same thing. I thought that Mazda lessened the torque also. But the torque decrease would also be compensated bu the anticipated decrease in weight.

Dude, it's only one torque off.

Originally posted by TekkamanX5
Dude, it's only one torque off. It's actually 3, but still not a huge change. I think that a number in the 160s is really more a psychological thing than an actual power thing.

160-159=1
well now, im only in geometry, but don't insult my knowledge.

The estimate that has been floating around, and is in the FAQ, is 162lb-ft.

I was not sure of the exact number and i realize that it is not a large decrease, but i was something i just wanted to point out.

A lot of the information on that website is out of date, so I wouldn't worry. 3 ft-lbs ain't a big deal anyway.

Ahh, shades of things to come...

People complain all the time that they think the RX-8 doesn't make 238 hp. If it doesn't then it stands to reason that it probably makes less than the specified torque too. What's in a number?

this is soooo 2002:) i miss the big purple guy. i wonder how hes doing at GM now?

i thought the torque for the MT was always listed at 159 and the AT was 164.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT 3 TORQUE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

seriously, maybe it's just you were remember the torque specs of the auto (164) and not the 6spd... :D

This thread really torques me.