I was just looking at an old blog and was thinking the 16X with its lite weight and 270+ HP will have most likely a 0-60 of sub-5 seconds.....What do you think....sorry I'M Getting A little.....you know I CAN'T WAIT!! I just want my next ROTARY!!! It will be my eight.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/02/12/r...-rx-8-to-be-c/

 

What would rock is if it hit 60 at redline in 1st gear. I know I'm dreaming, but just think of the sound that engine would make...

 

WTF, that article is from February.


I'm not believing a thing out of all these stupid articles and rumors until Mazda releases news ona production RX vehicle... WHen it does.. Please be a Z killer please be a Z killer please be a Z killer.

 

no way itll be sub 5 seconds... takes turbo setups with 300rwhp + to pull that off.

It'll be more like mid 5's, which would still be fine for me.

 

I wonder how much it will retail for?

 

OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!

Oh wait, that's the redline.

 

Aren't we already in the high fives? So adding that much HP + a decent amount of weight removed couldn't be possible for a 5 or luckily a sub 5?

I wouldn't say a sub five WILL happen, but I'm guessing more in the 5 - low 5 range.

 

gawd....is it here yet??

 

can i get the 16x swapped into the rx8?

 

uhm, a stock FD does 0-60 in 4.9 with 255hp at the flywheel. I dyno'd my previous mostly stock FD and it was roughly 230hp to the wheels. Did a 13.5 qtr mile in that thing.

 

Am I the only one here that doesn't care, whether if it's discussion about getting the next gen. or comparison to other cars?

I mean, why is it when we're talking about the next gen., everyone says it should have more horsepower.

And when it comes to comparing the current rx-8 to other cars, everyone is content with the horsepower???

I might get bashed, but for me, they can reduce the weight and keep the same engine for all I care. Let's concentrate on making the next rotary engine not overheat, not idle rough, actually inject enough oil, before trying to outdo the 370z in power just yet.

 

^^^mine idles fine....

Just needs MOAR POWER!!!!

haha i definitely agree with you tho.

 

I'd like to see a 11k rpm redline!!!

 

I'd like to see no engine recalls.

 

Right, well, if we use the R3 testing as any indication, the RX8 is no longer a 5.9 second 0-60 car and more like a low to mid 6's car.Shouldnt be a surprise to anybody.

So, let's take the 5.0 second 0-60 case. If we look at SEVERAL cars with 4.9 to 5 flat 0-60's, such as the BMW 335i, the Z4 MCoupe, Pontiac G8 GT, Porsche Cayman S (I can quote more), they all have in common a 13.5 sec quarter mile time at around 104 to 105 mph.

I see the following being done by a lot of RX8 owners. Here's the flawed thinking "My RX8 weighs X and has X horsepower, so it should compare to X car." What they're failing to do is to factor in the inherent difficultly of taking the NA rotary's peaky power curve, and getting it to the ground. It is hard to get that power to translate to good acceleration times... not talking about how fun or smooth or whatever other subjective quality it has. We're talking about qualitative acceleration here.

If the 16X can not only make 270 crank hp, but also have 270 lb-ft of torque, and shave 220 lbs off it, NO BRAINER. Sub 5 second 0-60 car. I don't think that will happen. Its not going to make a perfectly flat horsepower and torque curve like that BMW 335i.

The best example I can give you is the Porsche Cayman vs the Porsche Cayman S. Porsche Caymn comes in at 3010 lbs with 245hp and 201lb-ft of torque. The Cayman S weighs more at about 3120 lbs but with 295hp and 251lb-ft of torque. The bump in power is 50hp, comparable to the HP increase from going from the 232hp 1.3L Renesis to the 270hp 1.6L 16X. The Cayman does 0-60 in around 5.3-5.4 seconds and quarter of around 14.0 at 100mph. The Cayman S does around 4.8-4.9 and quarter of 13.3-13.4 @ 105-106.

What does all this say? You MIGHT pick up .5 to .6 seconds 0-60 by adding 40 crank hp to the RX8. If the current R3 is a low 6 second 0-60, then we're looking squarely at a mid 5 second 16X RX8, which is how I arrived at my original assertion. Take off 220 lbs off the curbweight, and you could pick up a couple more tenths, but you still aren't going to reach the magical "sub-5 seconds" as OP contends.

The only other thing to learn by this comparison of the Cayman vs RX8 is looking at curbweight to power to 0-60 relationships. The Cayman has only 12 more crank hp and weighs the same as the 8, but manages a over a half second better 0-60 than the RX8. It's ability to get the power to ground efficiently is the difference, and torque/hp curves are a good part of the reason.

When doing these acceleration comparisons of Whatever to the 16X RX8, I would have to say that because of the rotary's disadvantage, you should not be comparing to similarly powered RWD cars like the Z4Coupe and Cayman, but to FWD cars like a 2935lb 260hp Cobalt SS, and the 3200lb 270hp Nissan Altima Coupe... both of which have mid 5 second 0-60's.

 

In all reality we don't know what the 16x will be. The Renesis was all hyped up before it was released and was supposed to be better than it is according to the news articles that I read. I'm not assuming anything until it is out.

 

Exactly... which was the point of my post. You're thinking is absolutely frickin' dead on.

"Hype" is one the reasons the RX8 is not selling as well as it should. The expectations for the car in some of those qualitative measurements were too high, and it hurt the 8. Now that the 16X is "all the talk", we again are setting the bar too high, and are setting ourselves up for disappointment.

This is rx8club. You guys know 10,000 times more about the rotary powered cars than the average consumer. If you guys don't have the facts straight, then it's only going to be worse for the general public who are perspective buyers of the next-gen rotary powered vehicle. As educated rotary enthusiasts, our friends and associates will look to us for information. We have an opportunity to not screw it up this time with bad conjecture and hype. It might mean the end of the Mazda rotary in the mass market if it happens again.

Say it with me... "from what I know at this moment, the 16X RX8, if it ever comes out, will probably have a mid to high 5 second 0-60". If Mazda does better, awesome! It will translate to even better sales. If they can't manage that... well... that wouldn't be good.

I want to own another new rotary powered sports car. I have a stake in this too.

Okay, I'm done with teh loooooong posts.

 

^word

 

man that would be crazy good!

 

"from what I know at this moment, the 16X RX8, if it ever comes out, will probably have a mid to high 5 second 0-60"

ok gettin it down pat....lol

 

The FD had similar weight and HP to what they are shooting for. It will also have the extra low end torque not to mention the new DCT will shave some time too.

 

It seems to me the question shouldn't be about how good the 16X will be, but rather "Will the 16X be?" That is, with all the new emissions and mileage standards coming out, as well as the poor sales of the RX-8 across its life, combined with the suffering US auto industry...what are the actual chances we see a next gen rotary in the next 5 years even?

Though I love my 8 more than any car I've owned and I know there's a decently strong rotary following, I think if I was Mazda's business strategy guy making the business decision on whether to produce a new rotary sports car, given my fleet already sells the MX-5, I'd be hard pressed to feel like it was a strong investment for Mazda as a company to heavily invest in producing the 16X...

 

LMAO!!!

It's natural to get amped up about it. I still don't think the comparison of a sequential turbo 13B versus the NA 16x is one to one, even though the 16X has more displacement.

Maybe you should consult with 04RX8man

 

Your correct I'm "amped up". I remember when the 13B came out, I Was In Heaven after two 12A's. Now more torque on the lower end and at red line it was still wanting to give you more. If the new RX is anything like the progression I've seen in the last 40yrs I will not stop smiling. I wonder if MAZDA might give me two models to make a choice from?

 

I personally will be very disappointed if the 16X does not come with at least a turbo option. Even with the current crop of cars the numbers they are talking about for the 16X are on the low side. Given Mazda's history of overestimating the power output of their cars (especially with the RX-8 which is fresh in everyones mind) and the continual advance of both horsepower and efficiency of competing vehicles I don't see how another naturally aspirated rotary is going to sell much better than the RX-8. A low boost turbocharger might raise the price of the RX-8 a bit, but could easily push the power north of 300 and regain the things that people loved about the RX-7. Competitive power/performance with cars costing much more. A chassis learning from the RX-8, a motor with a bit more displacement, and a fast spooling single turbo would be a sure purchase for me.