What is the reason for wanting as high of redline as possible? Is it the sound/vibration of the engine? Some performance increase?

Well, my reason is that it is just a lot more fun. Nothing like a smooth, high revving engine screaming at super high revs. Makes you feel like a champ, and the sound is just heavenly. That and the fact that anybody and his dog can make an engine that can rev to 5-6K RPM, but it takes some serious engineering knowhow to make an engine rev to 8-9K RPM, be smooth doing so, and not break either. There are only a few companies out there with that kind of knowhow.

Low end grunt is nice, but the high revving engines are just way more fun.

high redline = well balanced engine = smooth feel

It also means there is a greater performance potential and has the ability to use a higher ratio differential = quick acceleration.

Oh yeah and it looks cool too :cool:

With a high redline you don't have to shift as early, so you can stay in gear longer and make each gear shorter for better acceleration without lossing top speed.

Originally posted by Mazda Family
With a high redline you don't have to shift as early, so you can stay in gear longer and make each gear shorter for better acceleration without lossing top speed.

um, with a high redline, you need to shift all the time, because powerband is usually lower


Real reason for people liking high revving engines is that they are usually high output per liter engines that weight much less than V6 engines with comparable output... lots of people preffer smaller/lighter cars...

You could actually say that people like less weight in a sports car and only way you can get that from naturally aspired engine is by having high rev engine... its not the best solution really if you want to go fast

however, its much cheaper to build light vehicle with 1.8-2.0 engine with 180-200hp than V6 with 220 hp...

F1 cars rev up to 16k-20k but have really low low torque, around 200 pounds... but its a built for track so it works great...

I would personally take Nissan's 250 HP V6 over 220 HP Type S (comparable power to weight ratio) for road use

Originally posted by spwolf


um, with a high redline, you need to shift all the time, because powerband is usually lower


The powerband is lower???? WTF? Cars with higher redlines often have very wide *useable* power bands and so can stay in gear much longer. For example my FD rx-7 makes solid boost from 1750rpm to 8000rpm so I can, and sometimes do, drive from 0kph to highway speeds (100kph +)all in second gear. This is very useful if you're trying to eat takeaway while driving :D

What you may be trying to say is that cars with high redlines often require a downshift when you suddenly want rapid accelaration from cruise. This is misleading and so often bullshit. Yes an S2000 feels horribly Civic like when booted from 2000rpm in fourth. But I can pull over 0.45g longitudal acceleration from 2000rpm to 7750rpm in fourth, which gives me more than enough acceleration for day-to-day purposes. I do gain about 0.1g by downshifting but I only need that for racing and only an idiot wouldnt downshift from 4th for a race anyway.

So what do I gain by having an 8000rpm redline? Well I can run a 4.11:1 diff which mean that I get more ACTUAL (not corrected) torque at the wheels than any low-revving domestic ever made here even though they have more flywheel torque. The result of this is that I have more acceleration through the power band and therefore my car is faster.

no, what i wanted to say is that at 3k, S2000 feels like Civic... to keep it fast, you will need to keep it in narrower rpm range than if you were driving an powerful V6 or V8

now, you are arguing that it doesnt matter anyway since you dont need it to be fast all the time... why not?

based on your post, one would have to wonder why they still make V6 & V8 engines

Originally posted by spwolf

um, with a high redline, you need to shift all the time, because powerband is usually lower

Originally posted by spwolf

no, what i wanted to say is that at 3k, S2000 feels like Civic... to keep it fast, you will need to keep it in narrower rpm range than if you were driving an powerful V6 or V8


Hmm... The thread was talking about high rpms not about the s2000. I previously posted some of the below:

The s2000 has a range of approx 2750 rpm (5750 - 8500) of 90% peak torque or greater. The vtec's first peak in the torque curve does not hit the 90% mark and the torque actually drops before slowly rising again at 4500 rpm again. This is why the s2000 has had a reputation of being "peaky".

Actually, the most amazing thing about what we have seen come out about the renesis is that it will have "90 percent of peak torque available at 3250 rpm". Assuming that the torque curve doesn't go up and down like the vtec s2000 one, this would mean that there will be 5500 rpms of 90% or greater torque in the Rx-8's powerband!!!!

Given the flat torque curve of rotary engines, would it be accurate to describe an engine with powerband of 5500 rpm with 90% or greater torque as having a "lower powerband"?

Would a driver have to "shift all the time" on such a car? Such statements are what cause others to say: WTF?

Brian

we will not know that until we see nice hp and torque graphs...what we know now is that it will have less torque than RX-7... much less since it is naturally aspired, so having relativly small amounts of torque, even at 90% (beauty of renesis) from 3250 rpm doesnt equal to lots of torque

you can say "wtf" as much as you want, but if you are trying to compare conventional (not renesis since we dont know its details yet) vtec or vvti engine to V6, V6 (and V8 and v10 and V12) is far more superior when it comes to sheer power...

I cant believe that ppl are tyring to argue this... did you ever see super car or expensive sports car with 4 cylinder high revving vtec engine? no ;-)

Acura NSX, updated for 2002, peaks at 7100 rpm... while Toyota Celica GTS peaks at 7800 rpm, based on your assumption, is GTS a better engine somehow?

Hi Spwolf,

I believe that the assumptions here are all yours? One would think that on the rx8forum, a discussion on high rpms would not only specifically refer to piston engines where you have to shift all the time because of the narrow powerband but might also refer to the rotary which is known for its wide and flat powerband.

Alear asked why some people want a high redline, rpm_power responded with his personal experience about why he likes his car with a high redline and you ask a ridiculous rhetorical question about why v6 and v8 engines are even in existence?

It appears that you are the one assuming that nobody is aware of the advantages of having a v6 or v8.

It appears that you are the one assuming that someone (rpm_power or I?) believe that having vtec or vvti put out more power than a v6, v8, v10, or v12.

It appears that you are the one assuming that someone (rpm_power or I?) are arguing that supercars should have 4 cylinder vtecs.

It appears that you are the one assuming that someone (rpm_power or I?) think that the only criteria for a car is a higher rpm.

False assumptions, begging the question, rhetorical questions and red herrings. You try to throw everything in there when someone doesn't agree with you huh?

Brian

Originally posted by spwolf
no, what i wanted to say is that at 3k, S2000 feels like Civic... to keep it fast, you will need to keep it in narrower rpm range than if you were driving an powerful V6 or V8

GM ex-buick v6 peak power 230hp (Redline 5500rpm)
90% torque lower cut-off 2000rpm
90% torque upper cut-off 4500rpm
operating range: 2500rpm

1993 JDM-only 13b-rew 230hp (redline 8000 rpm)
90% torque lower cut-off 3250rpm
90% torque upper cut-off 6750rpm
operating range: 4500rpm

call that narrow?

Originally posted by spwolf

now, you are arguing that it doesnt matter anyway since you dont need it to be fast all the time... why not?


I'm saying that if you are within your 90% range you will have strong acceleration. read again.

Originally posted by spwolf

based on your post, one would have to wonder why they still make V6 & V8 engines

hey? Not all cars are built for performance. Low revving engines are good for load hauling just not performance. Most modern high performance v6 or v8 engines have a high operating RPM range. Ever seen a ferrari motor?

-pete

Originally posted by spwolf
we will not know that until we see nice hp and torque graphs...what we know now is that it will have less torque than RX-7... much less since it is naturally aspired, so having relativly small amounts of torque, even at 90% (beauty of renesis) from 3250 rpm doesnt equal to lots of torque


You are showing the limits of your tech knowledge here. We will also need to know gear ratios and more importantly diff ratios to judge how useable the engines powerband is. Do you know why?

Originally posted by spwolf

you can say "wtf" as much as you want, but if you are trying to compare conventional (not renesis since we dont know its details yet) vtec or vvti engine to V6, V6 (and V8 and v10 and V12) is far more superior when it comes to sheer power...


At risk of getting side-tracked by this rubbish - how is a single profile cam going to have more "sheer" power than a multi-stage? I cant beleive you wrote that!


Originally posted by spwolf

I cant believe that ppl are tyring to argue this... did you ever see super car or expensive sports car with 4 cylinder high revving vtec engine? no ;-)


Why only 4 cylinder? Plenty of performance cars are high revving - ferrari, lambo, bmw m3,m5 hell virtually all of them.

Originally posted by spwolf

Acura NSX, updated for 2002, peaks at 7100 rpm... while Toyota Celica GTS peaks at 7800 rpm, based on your assumption, is GTS a better engine somehow?


Now you've lost the plot. The argument here is that high operating RPM's can lead to a wider NOT NARROWER power band that's all Brian and I have been saying.

-pete

well guys, putting japaneese high revvin engine together with european V6/V8 engines is hardly possible...

having 4 cyl engines that rev high brings all kind advantages is all what i was saying, but one of those advantages is not that the car is more usable...

Originally posted by Jerome81
Well, my reason is that it is just a lot more fun. Nothing like a smooth, high revving engine screaming at super high revs. Makes you feel like a champ, and the sound is just heavenly. That and the fact that anybody and his dog can make an engine that can rev to 5-6K RPM, but it takes some serious engineering knowhow to make an engine rev to 8-9K RPM, be smooth doing so, and not break either. There are only a few companies out there with that kind of knowhow.

Low end grunt is nice, but the high revving engines are just way more fun.

and I agree with Jerome81 as well ;-)

Originally posted by spwolf
we will not know that until we see nice hp and torque graphs...what we know now is that it will have less torque than RX-7... much less since it is naturally aspired, so having relativly small amounts of torque, even at 90% (beauty of renesis) from 3250 rpm doesnt equal to lots of torque

you can say "wtf" as much as you want, but if you are trying to compare conventional (not renesis since we dont know its details yet) vtec or vvti engine to V6, V6 (and V8 and v10 and V12) is far more superior when it comes to sheer power...

I cant believe that ppl are tyring to argue this... did you ever see super car or expensive sports car with 4 cylinder high revving vtec engine? no ;-)

Acura NSX, updated for 2002, peaks at 7100 rpm... while Toyota Celica GTS peaks at 7800 rpm, based on your assumption, is GTS a better engine somehow?

I guess all of those 4 cylinder Lotus's of past and present don't count then.

what are you talking about? lotus 4cyl engines are not powerful or great, well first of all they are not lotus engines (122 hp old school rover engine, brrrr)... but lotus chasis is sooo beautifully light that it doesnt matter that you dont have much power... which is what I said anyway, they are good cuz they are light, not cuz they are so powerful

Originally posted by spwolf
what are you talking about? lotus 4cyl engines are not powerful or great, well first of all they are not lotus engines (122 hp old school rover engine, brrrr)... but lotus chasis is sooo beautifully light that it doesnt matter that you dont have much power... which is what I said anyway, they are good cuz they are light, not cuz they are so powerful

I never said the engines were Lotus engines, I referenced the cars as being lotus and that they had 4 cylinder engines. What you said earlier (and what the bulk of my reply was aimed at) was,

"I cant believe that ppl are tyring to argue this... did you ever see super car or expensive sports car with 4 cylinder high revving vtec engine? no ;-) ".

My point was there are super cars powered by 4 cylinder engines. Going further back in time you can find even more, such as several Ferrari's in the sixties. If you want to direct your search to race as well as road cars, take a look at some turbo era F1 engines, such as the race winning Brabham BMW of the 1980s.

umm, actually super lotuses have V8 engines... cheap lotuses have 4 cyl engines ;-)

Actually until about 5 years ago or so, the super Lotus, the Espirit, was powered by a turbo 4 cylinder.

The Elise is also a 4 banger, probably makes about 120hp or so. Goes to 60 in about 5 seconds flat. Light weight is better ;)

Originally posted by Jerome81
Actually until about 5 years ago or so, the super Lotus, the Espirit, was powered by a turbo 4 cylinder.

The Elise is also a 4 banger, probably makes about 120hp or so. Goes to 60 in about 5 seconds flat. Light weight is better ;)

yep, sure is... I definetly preffer lighter cars, although elise goes to extremes, I would never get it

Originally posted by spwolf
umm, actually super lotuses have V8 engines... cheap lotuses have 4 cyl engines ;-)

Try telling the owner of an S4S that they have a 'cheap' lotus and see how they respond.

but at the same time, esprit's 4 cy turbo peaked out at 6,500 rpm, so it is hardly part for this discussion ;-))

Originally posted by spwolf
I cant believe that ppl are tyring to argue this... did you ever see super car or expensive sports car with 4 cylinder high revving vtec engine? no ;-)
Originally posted by cshepley
Try telling the owner of an S4S that they have a 'cheap' lotus and see how they respond.
Originally posted by spwolf
but at the same time, esprit's 4 cy turbo peaked out at 6,500 rpm, so it is hardly part for this discussion ;-))

Umm... It seems to be hard for you but let's try to understand what what a previous poster said. Are you saying that the Lotus S4S (1995 - 1996) that cshepley was talking about was not an expensive sports car?

Or were you trying to back off and change the subject by pointing out that OLDER Esprit turbos had a lower hp peak and that you didn't want anybody to talk about this anymore?

BTW, the S4S (made for 1995, 1996) that cshepley was talking about had 300 bhp @ 7000 rpm. If you want to, you can look up what the redline was for that car (7500?). Please let us know exactly what is the lowest redline that you want to discuss in this thread so we don't confuse you anymore. ;-)

Brian

Okey, this went way too far...

4 cyl engines are my gods, no matter how high they rev or what kind of car they are in, or if they have an turbo or two... they are simply the most beautiful pieces of engineering ever made.

I submit to them...


... now, I was trying to point that reason people use "high revving engines" (which in most of other car discussions would be 4 cl engines (except for mazda's rotary), peaking above 7,000, redlining above 7,500, mostly naturally aspirated) is because they are lighter (especially) and cheaper than V6 and V8, etc, engines... I got hit by comparisons to Buick V6, Ferrari's, Espirt Turbos (Lotus has spicey version of Elise that revs actually really high, but its pretty pointless), as if I was saying that those 4-cl engines suck.. no, they dont suck, however if you want power and torque, you dont get 4 cly (even with turbos)... even Lotus knows this, thats why they finally made V8 for the Esprit.

Now we might have been sidetracked before, but there it is... it just didnt come to my mind that if some1 asks "why do people like high revving engines", they are thinking of Ferrari's or M3's

Originally posted by spwolf
4 cyl engines are my gods, no matter how high they rev or what kind of car they are in, or if they have an turbo or two... they are simply the most beautiful pieces of engineering ever made. I submit to them...


Another ridiculous statement but then again, we're getting used to hearing them from you. ;-)

It appears that you either have a habit of misrepresenting other peoples views or that reading English (not your native language?) causes you to misunderstand where people are coming from.

Begging the question is arguing against a viewpoint that you attribute to someone else although they never said anything about it. An example would be someone saying that black is darker than white and you coming back with an argument that 1 + 1 does not equal 3. You can hope that people will remember that you were right and that people forget that it has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You first say that a high redline causes you to shift all the time. Rpm_pwr writes about his personal experience with a high revving wide powerband car (3rd gen rx-7) to point out that a high redline doesn't necessarily cause you to shift all the time. You then back off and say that you were just talking about s2000 (a notoriously peaky motor) and made some sarcastic comment about bigger engines even existing? WTF?

I mentioned that this thread was not just talking about the narrow s2000 powerband and that a thread like this on the rx8forum would probably have something to do with the latest version of the rotary (which has always had a very wide and usable powerband). You then argued that a v6, v8, v10, v12 has more sheer power than a variable valve timing 4 cylinder?!?!? WTF? Who was arguing that?

You then asked a rhetorical question meant to get across to people that there were never any expensive sports cars with a high revving 4 cylinder (then answered yourself no) then posed a ridiculous rhetorical question asking if one car would have a better engine than another if it had a higher redline by 700 rpms. WTF?? Who was arguing that??!?!?!

Cshepley then addressed your rhetorical question about expensive high revving sports cars by bringing up the Lotus cars. You answered that they didn't have Lotus engines. WTF???? Who was arguing that?!?!?!??!?!

You then said that only "cheap Lotuses" (Loti?) had 4 cylinders. When Cshepley asked about the STS, you tried to quote the specs from older Lotus engines and didn't want to address whether it was an "expensive sports car with a 4 cylinder engine".

When it was pointed out that you didn't quote the correct specs, you then complained that people actually addressed your previous statements with actual examples to counter them (Lotus, Buick, Ferrari, etc). Would you have liked it have been better if they didn't use actual examples to counter your statements and if they had instead pulled something from their anal orifice like the hot effluvia that you have been spouting ;-)

Sorry to go off on you but if you quit with the attitude and actually take some time to try and understand what people are saying, you would look less like a pedantic kid looking for attention and might have people taking your word more seriously.

Brian

wow... I guess you try to insult everyone that doesnt agree with you? interesting... wont get you far in life... seems like you are a bit childish here... you managed to invert each one of my sentences to your liking... once again, wont get you far...

Originally posted by spwolf
wow... I guess you try to insult everyone that doesnt agree with you? interesting... wont get you far in life... seems like you are a bit childish here... you managed to invert each one of my sentences to your liking... once again, wont get you far...

True to form, you didn't respond to the points made.

Your assumption about me insulting everyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong again. I just don't have any compunction about responding to others in the same way that they talk however.

Your assumption that I wont get or haven't gotten far in life is wrong again.

Brian

Ok guys and gals, lets take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard... :D

The original question was "why do people want a high redline".

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL: for example:
Engine A: constant torque from 2000-5000 rpm redline
Engine B: constant torque from 2000-7000 rpm redline

-identical gearing, vehicle weights, etc., the car with engine B will accelerate faster.

To extend the argument any further to include other variables (gearing, engine type, etc.) introduces too many unknowns, and its impossible to make direct comparisons.

Besides, I really doubt we'll see a V8 or 4 banger RX-8, and this forum is about the RX-8, right? :)

Grimace, yep I agree...although, if engine A has more torque, it will accelerate faster (all other things being equal)


Buger: once again, you invert my words... it seems as if you are well practiced in it...

Originally posted by spwolf
Grimace, yep I agree...although, if engine A has more torque, it will accelerate faster (all other things being equal)


Buger: once again, you invert my words... it seems as if you are well practiced in it...

If you are talking about the torque output of the torque multiplier I agree with you. :)

Hi Spwolf,

Keep the pucker and hopefully no more effluvium will escape ok? Unfortunately for you, whether I inverted your words or not will be easy enough for anyone who reads through the thread to determine. Just because you post something doesn't make it true. ;-)

Hi Grimace,

It's nice to hear someone post something relevant to the thread again. Hopefully we can all stay on topic this time.

I remembered reading about a page about horsepower vs torque awhile ago and found it again recently. The below link may be an interesting and informative read for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html

The page is relevant to this thread as he makes several references to how a higher redline (with the same torque) would make a difference. A snip from the page:

"The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn't), but because it pulls *longer*. "

It has a pretty good comparison of how 2 corvettes with the same torque but different horsepower and rpm numbers would fare against each other in a race:

Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM
------ ------------------- -------------------------
L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200
LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600

Extreme examples are often used to illustrate points more clearly and the page also has an example of how fast a water wheel with a calculated torque of 2600 ft/lbs (but only 6 hp) would pull a car.

The page concludes with the following statement from the author:

"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." :-)

One of the great things about previous rotaries (and of course even more so in the new renesis) is that the wide powerband and high redline make them well suited to high gear ratios which is what rpm_pwr mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Does anyone know of another engine with a powerband of 90% or greater of over 5000 rpms?

Brian

Buger,

who ever argued with that? *scratches his head*

Also, while 90% of torque from 3250 rpms is really nice, you do realize that renesis has 25% (?) less torque than FD?

Besides, most effective gearing is when revs fall down to max torque after upshift... in FD max torque was at 5k and redline was at 8k, that was pretty nice... while with renesis you have hp peakin at 8500 while max torque peaks at 7500...

so perforamance wise, I dont see renesis beating FD, all other things being equal....

at the same time, because of all these "other" things, I would much rather get RX-8 than RX-7.

besides, what I was arguing about was merits of for example rensis as supposed to LT1 engine, not L98 to LT1...

maybe next time you should not read and understand everything as a personal attack on you and try to insult other people less... I for one was definetly trying to discuss things while you kept and keep trying to turn it into fight

;)

You lost the pucker again. ;)

What are you talking about again?

I'm posted a link discussing torque, hp, gearing and how it relates to high redlines and your trying to turn this back into something else again? :D

Everyone can see that anytime somebody disputed one of your statements (rpm_pwr, cshepard or I) you did anything but try to address what they were saying.

Oh well, I tried. All future comments from you will get the "You lost the pucker again" line. :D

Anyways, back to the subject...

Brian

huh?

are you usually on something? you posted facts, that no1 was arguing, I wasnt arguing merits of high redline in similar engines but compare different engines...

what is so hard to understand?

FD vs renesis comparison was due to your constant "90%" of torque reminders that no1 has anything against... it just seemed to me that you might not understand that 90% of torque is worse than more torque

on the other hand, i pretty much summed it all here:
besides, what I was arguing about was merits of for example rensis as supposed to LT1 engine, not L98 to LT1...

now which one dont you understand? maybe you need it in a form of picture book?

sorry, couldnt resist :D

You lost the pucker again. :)

Brian

Originally posted by Buger
You lost the pucker again. :)

Brian

right, so much about that... if I ever find nice picture book, I will make sure to bring it to your attention...

btw... I have no clue what exactly does "You lost the pucker again" means... although you are probably just trying to "not respond to the points being made".

can I say... You lost the pucker again. :)

spwolf

lol

As stated earlier, I've already tried reasoning with you (as have others) and found it a waste of time.

Look up "pucker", "effluvia", "anal", and "orifice" in a dictionary then read the context from the previous posts in this thread...

You lost the pucker again.

Brian

so picture book it is...

Why don't you two take the flames to PMs or e-mail, and leave this thread on track. Toad? Velo? Are you guys seeing this? :)

As probably the only person on the forum with a dual-axis accelerometer kicking around I think I should clear a few things up that some people (buger etc) have touched on:

1)
Your accelaration graph is *PROPORTIONAL* to your torque graph for in gear acceleration

2)
The proportionality constant is

= (tyre radius * gear reduction) / mass

3)
The important factor here is gear reduction (diff ratio * current gear ratio). In other words you can double your acceleration (wind resistance ignored) by doubling you diff ratio. But by doing this you can detract from the usability of the car by reducing the max speeds in each gear.

Now here is the important bit:
ENGINES WITH HIGHER OPERATING RANGES CAN USE HIGHER RATIO DIFFERENTIALS FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF DRIVABILITY. THIS MULTIPLICATION EFFECT GIVES MORE GROSS TORQUE AT THE REAR WHEELS GIVING MORE ACCELERATION END OF STORY.

4)
Torque spread only affects how wide you can spread the gear ratios. It does not matter where in the RPM range the spread is because this can be traded with diff ratios rather it is the RPM range that affects how close you can make the ratios. So a car with power from 5000rpm to 8000rpm can have ratios just as wide as a car with power from 2500 to 5500 with the added advantage that it can run a higher diff ratio to increase acceleration.

5)
so say
car a makes 200lb.ft from 3000 to 6000 with a 4.11 rear (FD?)
car B makes 150lb.ft from 5500 to 8500 with a 5.82 rear (rx8?)

car a has 822rw lb.ft GROSS
car b has 873rw lb.ft GROSS

but here's the catch - both cars have identical speeds in each gear! It gets better the higher torque numbers give a higher top speed as well!

6)
With all this messing around with mulitpliers, dividers, NET torque gross torue isn't there an easier way? Yes. It's the often neglected POWER curve. Power at the flywheel = power at the wheels - gear losses. So you can simply overlay two RWHP graphs with shift points marked to figure out which will accelerate harder. It's a lot easier. That's why we can't bench race the rx-8 yet - because there is no power graph yet. Although if the torque spread stays that good then it will be ONLY the diff ratio stopping the rx-8 from being an FD rx-7 killer.

-pete
if this thread gets locked you can email me @ pete@autospeed.com if you have any questions

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
if this thread gets locked you can email me @ pete@autospeed.com if you have any questions [/B]

And on that note I second that we lock this thread…:D

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
The important factor here is gear reduction (diff ratio * current gear ratio).


Hi rpm_pwr,

You said it better than I could've. ;)

The production gearing and diff ratios have been what I've been hoping would be leaked by Mazda but I think they want to surprise everyone.

Having an engine with the powerband and redline of the renesis gives Mazda a great opportunity to increase either the gear ratios or the final diff ratios so that the ratio for all gears will create much more wheel torque than people will expect.

I personally hope that they have a very high ratio because of two reasons.

First of all, the car was designed to seat 4 people and the gearing/diff ratios should take that into account and be much higher than the ratios on the last rx-7 which I believe had the below #s:

1st - 3.483
2nd - 2.015
3rd - 1.391
4th - 1.000
5th - 0.719
Diff - 4.1

and could only fit 2 people.

I would much rather have better acceleration than a high top speed. Even if the top speed were only 130 mph, I would (probably) never get to there (damn tickets). ;)

Does anyone know what the highest ratio rear diff a maker has put in production car? Would it be easier (read cheaper) for Mazda to put higher ratios for all gears in the transmission and use a off the shelf 4.1 rear diff or would it be easier for Mazda to put a higher ratio rear diff and use an off the shelf transmission?

Brian

There's good discussion in here despite the mud-slinging. Let's keep it on topic and we'll leave it open for the time-being.

Congratulations, you said the magic words that spwolf seems to ignore so often, "wheel torque"! Unfortunately, I don't know if there are any prizes.

Originally posted by Buger


Having an engine with the powerband and redline of the renesis gives Mazda a great opportunity to increase either the gear ratios or the final diff ratios so that the ratio for all gears will create much more wheel torque than people will expect.