New Car and Driver article.. thanks to BryanH! [Archive]

RedRX

03-02-2003, 11:58 PM

Nice review. I'm glad that the RX-8 received such positive press from C&D -- now let's hope that this translates into solid sales for Mazda.

Although I don't post much, the posts I've made about the RX-8 have pertained to its engine power -- or lack thereof. Reading the article I noticed that, "despite the handling advantages, the RX-8 was the slowest on the racetrack and that's because of a shortage of midrange grunt in the rotary engine." I also read myriad comments about the lack of readily-available power from the Renesis. Franky, the engine seemed to represent the RX-8's only low point, at least in my reading of the article. This, IMO, is very unfortunate, especially since the RX-8 is being touted as "the return of the rotary."

These sentiments reflect my issue with the RX-8 almost from its inception. It simply lacks the power that is necessary to run with the competition. How many times have I read on this forum that there is much more to speedy track times than power. Well, if this article is any indication, power is clearly a significant factor. Given the noteworthy handling of the RX-8, a little more power would presumably put the RX-8 ahead of these two cars on a road course. Power is a factor, and the RX-8 could definitely use some more of it.

Now, I could be wrong about all this. Maybe most people don't care about being outrun by G35s at the road racing track, and by Altima's at the strip or from light to light (I'm not advocating street racing, just making a point here). But IMO, people do care about these things. It's why they buy magazines like C&D and check the stats pages for laptimes, lateral acceleration, 0-60, 1/4 mile times, etc.

Mazda may have a winner here, even with the rotary engine, which C&D seems less than enthusiastic about. At least they really like the car as a whole, and that's a good thing. However, it seems to me that with more power, the RX-8 would have a decided advantage over the competition.

At this point, I just can't wait to see the MPS RX-8 -- now that sounds interesting.

FWIW,

pelucidor

03-03-2003, 12:17 AM

Regarding Features/Amenities - the photos show a cloth seat for the RX-8 so we know it is not a Grand Touring vehicle. This means the car is probably missing some or all of the following items:
Auto Day/Night Mirror
Homelink garage door opener on mirror
BOSE Premium Sound System with 9 speakers
Dynamic Stability Control with Traction Control
Leather Seating Surfaces
Fog Lamps
Heated Mirrors
Heated Seats
Moonroof
Power Seats/6 way driver/Lumbar
Xenon Headlights

If I didn't have any of the above and I was comparing to a G35C Leather + Premium I would also give the RX-8 a 5/10 for Amenities. For me the most important items in order are:
Fun to drive
Transmission (daily driver through Houston traffic)
Handling
Brakes
which all got a perfect score.

BTW I went to FreshAlloy (where I hung out when I was going to get a G35 last year) and found the following: http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB25&Number=67310104&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
It makes for sad reading - the ignorance and bias against Mazda is surprising. I didn't bother to make a comment there as it would be a lose-lose situation - hopefully nobody else here will feel the need to correct them...

Hercules

03-03-2003, 12:33 AM

I think that Mazda is catering to a more responsible and older audience with this car... thus the lack of need for the shattering 0-60 times, etc.. All the while, keeping it affordable.

I think the RX-8 is good for its price. If you intend on racing it, we've mentioned many times here, then this isn't the car for you. It's a car that will serve more utilitarian purposes than a G35 Coupe, 350Z or whatever, be affordable, and be a BLAST to drive. The '10' rating on the 'Fun to Drive' category is indicative of this.

Would I have liked faster? Sure I would. But I do need the utility of the back seats, and also I need to keep the car within budget. I wanted a 330Ci BMW, but unfortunately that price is just too steep!

When the MPS RX-8 comes out, and hopefully in an ELEGANT body shape like the RX-8 is and nothing like the hideous pictures I've seen... I think everybody will be happy. The RX-8 is going to be the car to have for the next 2 years or so. With my 3 year lease I figure I can watch the evolution unfold infront of me for another year, and then perhaps get into the MPS RX-8 or something else, provided the money is there for such a venture.

The RX-8 gives you the best of both worlds... it's by no means 'slow' comparitively, lap times were close for both the G35, Mustang, and RX-8. However keep in mind that lap times being one thing... most people are going to autoX this car, myself included. And when you put the Mustang and G35 into that equation... who do you think will win then? :)

5.0THIS

03-03-2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Dilly
I'd like to see what laferle has to say about the G35. Says he has a G35 and A4. In my mind (all alone, probably) the S4 and G35 are the cars I'd be comparing to. Really, all whoopass cars, hard to go wrong with any of them.

I dont see the comparison here.... I think the S4 and the G35 are both better made cars than the RX-8, and offer far more to their owners, especially when it comes to power and amenities. and being as how you all feel that the RX-8 can handle well, go race an S4 in anything but perfectly dry conditions, and the S4 would own it, and even in the dry, I'll bet a S4 would keep up with an RX-8 quite well, and if not, it's a simple matter of upping the boost, as any late model rx-7 owner would know ;) :D

Hercules

03-03-2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

I dont see the comparison here.... I think the S4 and the G35 are both better made cars than the RX-8, and offer far more to their owners, especially when it comes to power and amenities. and being as how you all feel that the RX-8 can handle well, go race an S4 in anything but perfectly dry conditions, and the S4 would own it, and even in the dry, I'll bet a S4 would keep up with an RX-8 quite well, and if not, it's a simple matter of upping the boost, as any late model rx-7 owner would know ;) :D The new S4 for one, has no turbos. I would definately agree that the S4 is better built than the RX-8 but that also comes at a cost of weight... the S4 is a bulky car.

The G35 is not better built in my opinion, than the RX-8. I'd venture personally, that they are very similar in build quality.

The S4 also, is not an option even if it were the same price as the RX-8. Why? Because it's AWD, and that provides a different driving experience than the RX-8 would. RWD allows me to do some stupid stuff and keep the weight down too! The S4 would be great on a track, and straight line.. but take it to an autocross and not only will an RX-8 beat it... so would a Miata.

BryanH

03-03-2003, 12:54 AM

RedRX - I understand your point of view here. But I think some things need to be put in perspective. I don't think it's fair to expect the $28,000 1.3-liter RX-8 to compete with the $35,000 4.6-liter Supercharged SVT Mustang and the $37,000 3.5-liter V6 G35 in a drag race. And while the Mazda was in fact the slowest of the three on the road course, all three cars were very close. The G35 was only a tenth faster, while the uber-powerful SVT Mustang was about 8 tenths speedier than the RX. I think that says something for the well-roundedness of the RX-8 package, that it's able to compete with these cars while being both more practical and more affordable.

The racetrack used (Streets of Willow Springs) is somewhat of a power course as well, with a long straightaway and a few uphill sections.

Speed isn't everything either, unless you actually race. My mother's '95 Camry V6 would beat my '87 MR2 (when it was stock) in a drag race, but one of those cars is *much* more fun to drive than the other. ;) Heck, a new Saturn would waste my MR2 from a stoplight too. That certainly doesn't make me want one. :)

wakeech

03-03-2003, 01:04 AM

for comparison's sake, let's see how the RX-8 compares to a car of similar mass, with a comparable amount of engine: S2000...

let's not forget that the RX-8 seems "slow" compared to cars with WAY the hell more engine... saying a Miata is slow is one thing, but saying a <6 second (to 60) car is slow is completely rediculous... i mean, a TurboII only did the sprint in like 7.2 or something... this car is FAST, mere tenths of a second behind an FD... c'mon let's stop bellyaching over the brilliant 1.3L that could, okay?? it's a fan-fuckin'-tastic engine...

you wanna go ahead and plunk in a V8, be my guest... i'll just think you're a retard. :mad:

Hercules

03-03-2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by wakeech
for comparison's sake, let's see how the RX-8 compares to a car of similar mass, with a comparable amount of engine: S2000...

let's not forget that the RX-8 seems "slow" compared to cars with WAY the hell more engine... saying a Miata is slow is one thing, but saying a <6 second (to 60) car is slow is completely rediculous... i mean, a TurboII only did the sprint in like 7.2 or something... this car is FAST, mere tenths of a second behind an FD... c'mon let's stop bellyaching over the brilliant 1.3L that could, okay?? it's a fan-fuckin'-tastic engine...

you wanna go ahead and plunk in a V8, be my guest... i'll just think you're a retard. :mad: :D

rooster

03-03-2003, 01:16 AM

Hey Hercules,

By chance, did you miss scanning one page?? I don't see the write ups on the mustang or the G35C.

The most important one is there, but I am interested in seeing what else they wrote.

Any chance of getting the rest scanned??

Thanks,

Rooster

Hercules

03-03-2003, 01:20 AM

I'll email Bryan to get the extra page... he's the one who got me the article :)

5.0THIS

03-03-2003, 01:26 AM

Hercules

03-03-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

Ok... I'll agree that a G35 is similar in build quality, although I would still give a slight edge to the G...... But as far as the S4 goes..... I'm not too sure it wouldnt be quicker than an RX-8 90% of the time... and the only reason I say that is this: AWD=easier to drive fast, remember, most people just dont have much driver skills, and I'm willing to bet that for 90% of RX8 owners, the RX-8's handling abilities will be much higher than the driver's skills can ever explore..... on the other hand, you can throw around an S4 with relative abandon compared to an RX-8 with relatively little skill, which most drivers possess :) I'm just looking at the "real world" aspect of this.

and Wakeech, why the hate for V8s? Tell the next ZO6 driver you see in your RX-8 that his V8 sucks, and then proceed to watch him kick the ever living shit out of your car at half throttle. And then go race him at a road course, and again, he'll beat you handily, and then.. go to an autocross, and there's a good chance he'll beat you there too. Have a nice day :) A Vette will not beat a MIATA in a proper autocross. Why? Because you don't get above 3rd gear and it's not about torque, it's about being nimble. Tossing that big V8 side to side doesn't get time off your lap.

But I'll say this.... I love Vettes :D

RedRX

03-03-2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by BryanH
RedRX - I understand your point of view here. But I think some things need to be put in perspective. I don't think it's fair to expect the $28,000 1.3-liter RX-8 to compete with the $35,000 4.6-liter Supercharged SVT Mustang and the $37,000 3.5-liter V6 G35 in a drag race. And while the Mazda was in fact the slowest of the three on the road course, all three cars were very close. The G35 was only a tenth faster, while the uber-powerful SVT Mustang was about 8 tenths speedier than the RX. I think that says something for the well-roundedness of the RX-8 package, that it's able to compete with these cars while being both more practical and more affordable.

The racetrack used (Streets of Willow Springs) is somewhat of a power course as well, with a long straightaway and a few uphill sections.

Speed isn't everything either, unless you actually race. My mother's '95 Camry V6 would beat my '87 MR2 (when it was stock) in a drag race, but one of those cars is *much* more fun to drive than the other. ;) Heck, a new Saturn would waste my MR2 from a stoplight too. That certainly doesn't make me want one. :)

Bryan -- good points -- especially the one about the fun/satisfaction factor.

I do agree that the RX8 is a very different car than the Cobra -- the Cobra is a pony car that happens to have some room and handles pretty darn well, considering that chassis Ford is working with. Bottom line, I don't think that many people will cross shop the RX8 and Cobra. However, with that said, if one's objective is to go fast, in almost any venue, the Cobra is probably the better choice. BTW, the Cobra, fully equipped, stickers for $34K including shipping. This is very close to the cost of a a fully equipped RX8.

Wakeech -- I'm not sure whether your comments were directed towardsme or not, but just in case, I have a few comments.

Go ahead and compare the RX8 to the S2000. Probably a fair and good race. My guess is that both cars will turn similar track times, although the mag numbers I've seen show the S2000 out accelerating the RX8 by a small margin. And BTW, that's from a 2.0L motor. The Renesis may displace 1.3L but, due to its two-stroke nature, it breathes like a 2.6 -- the same way a two stroke 250 cc motor can process process air like a 500 cc 4 stroke. Rotary fans tend to forget this. Making power is not magic -- it's simply a function of the amount of air and fuel that can be burned by the engine. So, in a sense, the 1.3L Renesis does have a displacement advantage over a 2.0L four stroke (the S2000, for example), and this fact is recognized by every racing body that I'm aware of. Anyway, I digress...

In terms of 0-60 times, the RX8 must be driven brutally hard in order to eek out a sub 6 second 0-60 time. 8,000 rpm launches are impractical if not irresponsible, so although the car is capable of running those times, most RX8s will never see that kind of performance. And in terms of comparing it's 0-60 times with the RX7 -- at least one mag tested the third gen at 4.9 seconds 0-60. 60 mph is about 100 feet per second, so, by the end of a 0-60 mph jaunt, the RX7 could be in front of the RX8 by a fair margin. And that's from a car that's more than 10 years older than the RX8.

And finally, I never suggested using anythign other than a rotary in the RX8. I just want more power :-) And, hopefully, I'll get it in an MPS RX8 or new RX-7.

5.0THIS

03-03-2003, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Hercules
A Vette will not beat a MIATA in a proper autocross. Why? Because you don't get above 3rd gear and it's not about torque, it's about being nimble. Tossing that big V8 side to side doesn't get time off your lap.

But I'll say this.... I love Vettes :D

well, in it's repsective class, I think the corvette is the hands down winner. This link is for the 2002 SCCA Solo 2 nationals -- the final and biggest autocross race of the year. In the SS class, 52 placed on this sheet, all but 3 were corvettes, the highest placing no-corvette was an M3 in 29th place
http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/results/ss.html

Now... here's a link to the class where Miata's compete http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/results/cs.html now remember, they run the exact same course as the SS class does, and first off, it seems the miata doesnt quite rule it's class quite like the vette does, with a toyota MR2 coming in second behind a miata, and after that the results seem fairly split as far as number of MR2s placing compared to miatas. And oh BTW.... take a look at their times..... they are slower than the vette's times on the same track, so I guess when you said
A Vette will not beat a MIATA in a proper autocross you were kinda wrong huh? :o And dont tell me it isnt a proper autocross, this is SCCA solo 2 here, and this was the national championships.. it doesnt get any more "proper" than that. Miata guys may never be willing to admit it, but the heavy vette with the big V8 owns all right now when it comes to autocross, hands down. the proof is in the stats!

IGOZMZM

03-03-2003, 03:12 AM

I think the major problem that Mazda or anyone for that matter will have with deciding what kind of car this is will be that no one wants the RX-8 to be compared to theirs. It offers more in each catagory: More sports car than a normal sedan/2+2 and more pacticallity than a Sports car. Yes it may not beat the cars in everything they have in a class but it offers a better total package for the money in ANY catagory you put it in.

Sports cars don't want it to be compared to it because it has four doors, and 2+2 or coupes and sedans don't want to be compared to it because it's more of a sports car.

So maybe not the best of any one world but certainly IMO can be argued that it gives one of the best of all the worlds combined.

MrWigggles

03-03-2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by TJRX8
The one thing the G35 has that the RX8 doesn't is automatic electric sliding front seats to gain access to the rear seats. The 8 has two extra doors so it doesn't need this frivolous accessory.

Loaded vs loaded I think they are a wash. Add another category to the 8's total.

PS: what the hell is the Mustang doing in there?

And the G35C's sliding passenger seat sucks. Not only does it not have any memory to it. Everytime you raise it to put someone in the back seat, it resets to a horrendously awkward position for the front passenger. So the front passenger then has to spend 30 seconds getting the seat to a comfortable position.

And like I said since it doesn't have any memory, everytime someone sits in the rear, this process has to be repeated...

I am not sure how the G35c got a 10 score on the ammenities. It's nice inside but it isn't a luxury car. I know the scores are relative but when the RX-8 and the Mustang gets scores in the 5 area, 10 makes the G35c sound like a Bentley which it isn't.

-Mr. Wigggles

MrWigggles

03-03-2003, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by threeputtwash
Am I the only one who noticed that you needed a 8k rpm clutch drop to get the 0-60 5.9sec time? 5-60 7.5 seconds? So we're talking about 8 seconds for a 0-60 without a clutch drop?
Is this normal?
And of course the blurb on the low trunkspace isn't too inspiring...

I believe Car and Driver does their 5-60 MPH test with the clutch completely disengaged and the car rolling in first at 5 MPH. Then they punch it from there not using any clutch until the 1st-2nd shift. This is not the way to drive an RX-8 as it dramtically increases the time in 1st gear.

They explained their 5-60MPH procedure exactly a while back. Anyone else want to fill in the details?

-Mr. Wigggles

babylou

03-03-2003, 04:00 AM

If the RX-8 had more torque it would require a piston engine, a three rotor or a larger two rotor. All three options would mean, to varying degrees, more cost, more weight, higher CG and higher yaw moment of inertia. Now what do we have? An Infiniti G35c. This car is already available.

I prefer to stick with a car that is more nimble (has better transient response) and can be controlled during low speed slides more easily. These qualities combined with great shifter, clutch, brake and steering feel are what makes a car fun to drive on the [B]street[B]. Precious few of us actually track our cars. Miatas and MR2's are good track cars but they are great street cars. A Vette is a great car track but not as fun as a street car as an MR2 or Miata.

Of course if Mazda could up the torque 20% but not affect the engine mass I'll take it.

Renesis08

03-03-2003, 04:56 AM

Hercs post...

Hi all,

I felt I needed to reply as many of you are 'against' Mazda and the least I can do is defend the car I'm buying.

The G35 Coupe is a great car, and I'd consider it against the RX-8 if it had bigger back seats and was a few grand cheaper. However, the RX-8 fills for me, the utilitarian needs that are necesary in my next car.

Four good sized seats, an okay trunk, reasonable power, and a fun car. I believe on this, the RX-8 wins. I will lose in a straight line race to many cars. That's fine. I'll lose at the track too. That's fine also. But I will have a car that is smooth shifting, seats four comfortably, and fits in my budget.

This car isn't meant to compete with the likes of the G35 Coupe and Mustang.. probably moreso with the G35 Sedan, 330i sedan, and others in this range. Regardless though, C&D rated it number one out of the trio they reviewed. This is rather irrelevant to me however.

The type of 'fun' I want to have with the RX-8 isn't perhaps the type of fun most people have.. I go to empty lots and 'beat' on my cars, handbrake pulls, whatever... fun stuff for me. And of course there is autocrossing the car, which I also intend to do. Being that the car is more nimble than the G35 Coupe, this is where it will excel. Most people don't have tracks in their vicinity and as a result can only do autoxing due to availability. And for that practicality, the RX-8 will be quite good.

As per the thoughts on the RX-7 and all their problems... the twin turbo versions of the RX-7 indeed had a lot of problems mainly due to cooling. Inefficient cooling systems made for blown apex seals, which in turn led to a useless motor. The RX-8 doesn't suffer from this, as it's not turbocharged, and rotary engines are generally just as reliable as piston engines, except they don't take kindly to mistreatment, whereas a piston engine is not as susceptible.

If the G35 sedan was better looking, more nimble, had a better transmission and went on a huge weightloss only then could it be a choice for me over the RX-8. The 330i was my first choice in cars but the price for it was obscene, and thus the RX-8 was my choice of what was available.

I don't intend on stoplight racing, track racing, etc.. Probably just a little autox and then whatever I do on my day-to-day commute, maybe taking the scenic route home and hitting some twisties.

I believe when Mazda releases the RX-7 to compete against the Nissan 350Z and the G35 Coupe... you will see quite a battle. Mazda's cars are historically very capable handlers (much to the chagrin of some people that HATE Mazda!), though I admit the power has always lacked in their cars.

The next evolution of the sports cars from Mazda is the RX-7, and MPS RX-8. The RX-7 in my opinion will be far superior to the Nissan 350Z in every respect, as the RX-7 will be put on another weightloss from the RX-8 missing two doors and seats. However this is just my personal hypothethesis right now.

To those of you who hate Mazda... it's cool. I have a Nissan Maxima SE 2001 and I don't like it much either. I also have a Mazda Millenia which is obscenely slow, but very fun to drive. I suppose that for me, and many others considering the RX-8, power isn't the deciding factor because most times you can't use it on the street. But a fun and controllable car with a great shifter you can use every day, and for many people, that makes up their mind in getting the RX-8 or something else.

I look forward to future reviews though, more specifically with the RX-7 that will be released at some later date (hopefully). Should make for some interesting articles.

Oh and lastly, Car and Driver isn't the only magazine that gave the RX-8 'rave reviews.' CAR, EVO (my two faves), Edmunds, Canadian Driver, Autoweek... they all say the car is a blast to drive, and mention the same shortcomings of its midrange power.

I think it's hard to judge until you get behind the driver's wheel and just beat on it somewhere... then and only then can you make the true decision whether or not the RX-8 is more fun than the G35 Coupe or not. I've already put money on the RX-8 being more fun on a day-to-day basis and all around than the G35 Coupe. That's not to say it'll be faster... but many people equate speed to fun... and that's simply not how it is for me.

Anyhoo... cya on the highway in June

Very well said Herc! :D

Rich

03-03-2003, 09:11 AM

First of all, I'd like to thank the non-RX-8 fans for contributing. You guys (or gals) have done an excellent job of stating your points while keeping it friendly and not resorting to flaming. Thank you! You're welcome here any day, in my opinion.

My feeling is that these are all extremely different cars. People interested in the Mustang are not going to be interested in the RX-8, and vice versa. There are few cars I have less interest in that a Mustang, no matter how fast it goes on the track. The ones I've driven just feel really wrong to me. I suspect that anyone who likes Mustangs would be horribly disappointed by the power delivery of the RENESIS.

As for the autocross comparison, that's a moot point, in my book. How many people are competetive at the national level? Not many, and probably none of us here. In autocrossing, the driver is the difference. In my stock Miata, I've beaten tons of Corvettes, 3000GT VR-4s, Turbo Supras, FD RX-7s, a Lotus Esprit Turbo, M3s, and the list goes on and on. Many of those were on racing slicks as well, while I use the stock tires.

I've also been beaten by a stock Hyundai and plenty of other "lesser" cars. :(

Except at the most elite level, the car makes far less difference than the driver, and even at the elite level the driver is still most of it.

Anyway, there's really not much that the anti-RX-8 crowd can say that will convince me (or most people here) that the RX-8 is less of a car than anything else in a similar class. I believe the base RX-8 will be something like $6,000 less than the G35 and Mustang in the test. I don't need leather or any of the other garbage, so those aren't even remotely under consideration for me. They also don't have a rotary, which has the characteristics that I like in an engine: low weight, small size, high revving, high HP, and smooooooth. For what I want, the RX-8 is more car at a lower price. Yep, if you love torque it's not for you, but the gearing and light weight make that far less of a factor than the numbers would indicate. So it's 0.1 seconds slower on the track than the G35? I won't take it on the track. Also, see the above section on the driver.

I want a fun, tossable, lightweight, high revving car for under $30,000 that can seat 4 people. The G35 and Mustang have *none* of those characteristics, except the seating. If someone wants a fast, V-8 american car to take to the track at $35,000, then the RX-8 is the wrong car. If someone wants to drag race at stop lights without destroying their clutch in a few days, the RX-8 is the wrong car.

Isn't that what's great about all this? There are cars for everyone, regardless of their personal tastes. None are perfect, but there sure are lots of good choices!

droidekaus

03-03-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
you were kinda wrong huh? :o And dont tell me it isnt a proper autocross, this is SCCA solo 2 here, and this was the national championships.. it doesnt get any more "proper" than that. Miata guys may never be willing to admit it, but the heavy vette with the big V8 owns all right now when it comes to autocross, hands down. the proof is in the stats!

Thank you! I was just pulling stats from the SCCA to prove this very point. Nice ownage.

zoom44

03-03-2003, 12:21 PM

i was asking months ago what people thought of a comparison between a mustang and the rx-8. most people thought i was insane for asking but agreed that the entry mustang with the v6 would at least warrent a comparison. never did i think that soemone would compare the rx8 with a cobra. lets remember that the cobra is a worked over 5.0 liter (or more?) v8. the rotary in the rx8 is 1.3 liter! is there a torque and straight line power difference? OF COURSE THERE IS!! while most people here don't like the mustang i have been a fan of this car since i was born. spent the first 7 years of my life in the back of my dad's '64 1/2 stang(which he had to wait 5 months for after ordering-sorta like my wait for the rx-8). i spent 5 years in my 20's redoing a '65 'stang. but the fact that THIS magazine chose a 1.3 liter rotary and a v-6, both from japan mind you, over the SVT Cobra version shows just how much Ford needs to update the mustang! remember folks this car , the RX-8, is the same size as a 911 and weighs, according to C&D, 200lbs less and yet as everyone who has seen both it and the mustang will tell you there is way more room in the back than in the 'stang.
with everything this car offers at this price it is most definetly the car for me. but of course i had already decided that issue- this comparo is just icing on the cake:D :D :D :cool:

Hercules

03-03-2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

well, in it's repsective class, I think the corvette is the hands down winner. This link is for the 2002 SCCA Solo 2 nationals -- the final and biggest autocross race of the year. In the SS class, 52 placed on this sheet, all but 3 were corvettes, the highest placing no-corvette was an M3 in 29th place
http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/results/ss.html

Now... here's a link to the class where Miata's compete http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/results/cs.html now remember, they run the exact same course as the SS class does, and first off, it seems the miata doesnt quite rule it's class quite like the vette does, with a toyota MR2 coming in second behind a miata, and after that the results seem fairly split as far as number of MR2s placing compared to miatas. And oh BTW.... take a look at their times..... they are slower than the vette's times on the same track, so I guess when you said
you were kinda wrong huh? :o And dont tell me it isnt a proper autocross, this is SCCA solo 2 here, and this was the national championships.. it doesnt get any more "proper" than that. Miata guys may never be willing to admit it, but the heavy vette with the big V8 owns all right now when it comes to autocross, hands down. the proof is in the stats! Okay so maybe I was being sarcastic :p That's why I capitalized MIATA! :)

Anyhoo... being that the RX-8 has more power than the Miata, and just as good handling.. maybe it would give the Vette a run for its money. Another thing to point out is that Vette drivers have to be a lot better drivers than Miata drivers to get low times. The amount of power in an autocross can be as much a death wish as a blessing :)

Either way, the RX-8 will be 'easy' to drive in an autocross and the Vettes will retain quite a bit of driver skill... so you can have a blast at the AutoX in your RX-8 even being a mediocre driver... but then some new driver that got a Vette comes along... and a Miata owns :)

I heard a story a while back of a Lamborghini autoXing being beat by a Miata... that just illustrates my point :)

Anyhoo... gotta eat!

MJG35C

03-03-2003, 12:45 PM

I personally will reserve judgement of the RX-8 until I get a chance to drive one but I can comment on the G35. Some of you guys seem to penalize the G35 on what it has (leather, brembo brakes, power-sliding front seats, NAV, etc) that the RX-8 does not have. Add those features to a RX-8 then you'll have a better comparison but quite frankly as it stands I still wouldn't compare the two. Getting around town in the G35 is effortless with all the monster torque that the thing has. The RX-8 around town prowess remains to be seen but having to do a clutch drop at 8K rpms to get a 5.9 seconds 0-60 doesn't leave a warm and fuzzy in my mind.

IMO, the combination of great looks, torquey engine, luxury anemities, build quality, price and Infiniti service makes the G35 coupe a no-brainer for me. The RX-8 seems to be more boy-racer oriented while the G35's, 330i's, S4's draw a more mature crowd. Honestly, so far there is nothing about the RX-8 that appeals to me because I'm looking for a more upscale car which I don't think the RX-8 is. Maybe the test drive will prove me wrong. :)

Hercules

03-03-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by MJG35C
I personally will reserve judgement of the RX-8 until I get a chance to drive one but I can comment on the G35. Some of you guys seem to penalize the G35 on what it has (leather, brembo brakes, power-sliding front seats, NAV, etc) that the RX-8 does not have. Add those features to a RX-8 then you'll have a better comparison but quite frankly as it stands I still wouldn't compare the two. Getting around town in the G35 is effortless with all the monster torque that the thing has. The RX-8 around town prowess remains to be seen but having to do a clutch drop at 8K rpms to get a 5.9 seconds 0-60 doesn't leave a warm and fuzzy in my mind.

IMO, the combination of great looks, torquey engine, luxury anemities, build quality, price and Infiniti service makes the G35 coupe a no-brainer for me. The RX-8 seems to be more boy-racer oriented while the G35's, 330i's, S4's draw a more mature crowd. Honestly, so far there is nothing about the RX-8 that appeals to me because I'm looking for a more upscale car which I don't think the RX-8 is. Maybe the test drive will prove me wrong. :)
Few things to correct :)...

First, the RX-8 has all the luxury amenities that the G35 Coupe has. Leather, power seat (only driver, as another would require more weight added!), navigation, etc. The RX-8 doesn't *need* Brembo brakes as its own brakes do a better job of stopping than the G35's Brembos, so I don't see the big deal here.

As per the monster torque of the G35 Coupe (which I agree with), it's for most of us not important. The RX-8 will be quick off the line, quick enough for most of us. Those people that are swayed by 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times are better off not even buying the G35 but rather the Mustang as mentioned in this review.

Like you said, the combination of great looks, build quality (my Mazda Millenia is nicer inside than a G35 Sedan... haven't seen the coupe yet though), *high revving* engine, great shifter, usable back seat, and price lower by 3 or 4 grand than the G35 Coupe... it's a no brainer for us also :)

I think Mazda is going to get more mature buyers with this car and the boy racers will come along and get the RX-7s. The RX-8 is meant for an adult with a family, or at least the needs of one. G35s, 330s, S4s all can be associated with boy-racers too... whoever has the money can buy whatever they fancy.

Nobody is penallizing the G35 Coupe. I've said it myself on this forum, that if the RX-8 wasn't available I'd be looking at the G35 Coupe without a doubt. The 330i is ideal but too pricey. And please don't say that the G35 Coupe has ANY features over the RX-8... it doesn't even have ONE feature more than the RX-8 (I think :p). Nav, power seat, sunroof, great stereo system (by most accounts), homelink, all that jazz is in the car. I don't think the G35 has any features the RX-8 doesn't, which is why the RX-8 and G35 had such a close margin. If they used a loaded RX-8 vs the G35 Coupe in that C&D comparison the margin of beating the G35 would be higher still.

Anyways... as you said we will all see. The G35 is a nice car but it's not what I need... and it costs more than I want to spend. I had a 30k limit and I'm very close to that (31,100 w/destination). The G35 Coupe similarly equipped is almost 4000 more.

zoom44

03-03-2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Hercules

I had a 30k limit and I'm very close to that (31,100 w/destination). The G35 Coupe similarly equipped is almost 4000 more.

am i the only one who had a 30k limit and stayed under it? looks like you broke yours shayaan:p ;)

Hercules

03-03-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by zoom44

am i the only one who had a 30k limit and stayed under it? looks like you broke yours shayaan:p ;)
Rules are meant to be broken :)

Besides then I couldn't get the sunroof! That's immensely important to me :)

zoom44

03-03-2003, 01:46 PM

back on topic: as far as amenities go shouldn't the infinity have more than the rx-8? isn't that what infinity and acura and lexus are? upscaled models of the regular badged cars? they're supposed to have more lux stuff! i like the way mazda is handling things, instead of a difference in luxury Mazda offers more performance in it's Mazdaspeed/MPS cars :D :D ala Ford's SVT badge:cool:

m477

03-03-2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by MJG35C
Add those features to a RX-8 then you'll have a better comparison but quite frankly as it stands I still wouldn't compare the two.
If C&D had use the loaded "Grand Tourning" model RX-8 in the comparo (which has every feature a loaded G35c does) instead of a stripped down base model, then the RX-8's lead over the g35c would only have increased.

MJG35C

03-03-2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Hercules

Anyways... as you said we will all see. The G35 is a nice car but it's not what I need... and it costs more than I want to spend. I had a 30k limit and I'm very close to that (31,100 w/destination). The G35 Coupe similarly equipped is almost 4000 more.

This paragraph pretty much sums it up. You can only get what your budget will allow. Hell, if my pockets were deep a 2003 MB SL55 AMG would do nicely. :D

Hercules

03-03-2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by MJG35C

This paragraph pretty much sums it up. You can only get what your budget will allow. Hell, if my pockets were deep a 2003 MB SL55 AMG would do nicely. :D Yea, but I don't feel that I'm losing out by getting the RX-8... by my account, I'm getting more car for the money :)

MJG35C

03-03-2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Hercules
Yea, but I don't feel that I'm losing out by getting the RX-8... by my account, I'm getting more car for the money :)

Ditto!

DreamWarrior

03-03-2003, 02:42 PM

Wow...still want one, but now I'm trying to imagine how the car will handle even more.... I guess, however, that the 0-60 time will never been seen be me though, which does piss me off a bit just because I was hoping that it'd stay under 6 without needing to be tortured to do it...but adding a second to extend the life of my clutch will be tolerable.

Anyway, for those saying that a fully loaded version would pull ahead...I'm now more than ever wondering if it really would. More weight in the fully loaded version may be the real reason C&D didn't get to see a fully loaded car on their test bed. Now considering that I'm getting a fully loaded version, this makes me wonder how much performance I get to toss from it due to the ammenities. I think Mazda figured that most people would see this isn't the fully loaded version, ignore the "bad" ratings in tat category, and then take note of all the performance tricks to put the car on a performance pedestal, and it worked...but will the extra bagged knock it off that pedestal is my question.

snow_tires

03-03-2003, 02:45 PM

RedRX,

the renesis is not a 2-stroke engine, it has 4 distinct strokes.

MJG35C

03-03-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by DreamWarrior

Anyway, for those saying that a fully loaded version would pull ahead...I'm now more than ever wondering if it really would. More weight in the fully loaded version may be the real reason C&D didn't get to see a fully loaded car on their test bed. Now considering that I'm getting a fully loaded version, this makes me wonder how much performance I get to toss from it due to the ammenities. I think Mazda figured that most people would see this isn't the fully loaded version, ignore the "bad" ratings in tat category, and then take note of all the performance tricks to put the car on a performance pedestal, and it worked...but will the extra bagged knock it off that pedestal is my question.

I would imagine because it was a pre-production model that it wouldn't have all the bells and whistles installed but I'm sure another road test with a fully loaded example will tell a "slightly" different story. It still made a good showing for itself.

MrWigggles

03-03-2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by m477

If C&D had use the loaded "Grand Tourning" model RX-8 in the comparo (which has every feature a loaded G35c does) instead of a stripped down base model, then the RX-8's lead over the g35c would only have increased.

Except automatic climate control...

a small but not meaningless luxury item.

-Mr. Wigggles

MrWigggles

03-03-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by snow_tires
RedRX,

the renesis is not a 2-stroke engine, it has 4 distinct strokes.

Because it has three chambers, wouldn't it best be described as a three "stroke" engine?

Regardless, it is hard to compare to rotorary and piston engines. Some racing organizations mulitply the rotaries volume by 2 to get an equivalent piston displacement. While other organizations multiply the volume by 3 to get the equivalent.

-Mr. Wigggles

neofreak

03-03-2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
car is FAST, mere tenths of a second behind an FD... c'mon let's stop

The FD's 0-60 was 4.9, but I'm not saying that the 8 is slow. =)

Oh, and since we're on the topic of autox, what class do you think it'll be placed in? A-Stock?

RedRX

03-03-2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by snow_tires
RedRX,

the renesis is not a 2-stroke engine, it has 4 distinct strokes.

This is true, my bad. The reason I think of the rotary as a two stroke is becuase it uses porting rather than a valve train, it bruns oil (necessarily) by design, and it fires its full displacement during each rotation (360 degrees) of the crank. So there are similarities to two stroke engines, at least AFAIC. I do admit, however, that it's not fair to refer to a rotary engine as a two stroke engine per se.

Thanks for pointing this out.

rx8daniel

03-03-2003, 07:23 PM

The model tested was a pre-production model. As they said it had a "mongrel mix of features". This is likely as much because it was pre-production as much as it seems that the package specs vary for nearly every major country where it will be sold. For example, Canada only gets the sports pkg at the 'base'. In the UK they get the 5sp low HP combo, no auto, sport pkg is std on both; sunroof is stand alone option as is leather and metallic/mica paint - interesting - Nav is only avail w/leather. And of course their 'base' includes a BOSE w/6CD changer,DSC,and heated mirrors. Do they get the better stereo because the Beatles originated in the UK? Also in UK : "Lightning Yellow, Winning Blue and Nordic Green will not be available at official launch time". Since mica or metallic paint covers six colors and are an additional cost option there - does that make black the 'base color'? Also - the UK list shows "Climate Control" - does that simply imply a single temp setting that the system attempts to maintain? anyone? ;-) Thanks! My comments turned more into questions!

Quick_lude

03-03-2003, 09:05 PM

Did C&D weigh the vehicles? What were the curb weights?

Not that it changes anything for me but it's interesting to see that the 8 WILL require high rpm launches to get good acceleration times, dare I say just like the S2000? :p The one with the "peaky" engine and a "narrow" powerband? I remember a lot of people here, I'm sure Hercules was one of them :p , telling me how the 8 would NOT exhibit these characteristics for maximum acceleration.. hmm.. Sadly this does not seem to be the case.
Like I said, this article does not change anything for me, the 8 is still no 1 on my list for next spring, it just reaffirms what I thought this car would feel like, a high rpm performance machine with great handling dynamics. Let's not kid ourselves, the Renesis HAS to be revved to 9K rpm to get good performance, especially off the line and unfortunately this trait might sway some buyers away from this car....

wakeech

03-03-2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Wakeech, why the hate for V8s? Tell the next ZO6 driver you see in your RX-8 that his V8 sucks, and then proceed to watch him kick the ever living shit out of your car at half throttle. And then go race him at a road course, and again, he'll beat you handily, and then.. go to an autocross, and there's a good chance he'll beat you there too. Have a nice day :)

thank you. i did actually have a nice day.

i don't dislike V8's, i just think that there are simply better solutions for speed than "more 'cubes". when i first got into cars (i was 14 or 15) i thought that the grunt of the big block was what it was all about... then i got into F1, and lurked around the www.f1mech.com forum (which sadly deceased a while back) and learned things, serious things, about engineering, power, and overall performance (they're all eng. grad students in Brittain who race, and congregate to improve their cars... the guy who started it WORKS in F1).

as a V6 with two cylinders tacked on the back, i think they're just plain ugly... similar to using a sledge hammer to remove a car door a la Red Green. Also, i find that they only advantage they have over the rotary is that they have customarilly long strokes (distance from centre of rotation on the crank to the centre of the crank journal) allowing them to have really good amounts of torque. That is it. They don't even have more internal displacement (and ESPECIALLY capacity), or make more power per any metric you can think of. if you do come up with one, i'll chalk up another one for the heavy iron. and no, sound doesn't count, 'cause that's subjective anyways (listen to the 787B in this SevenStock movie (http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/movies/4-rotor_Le_Mans.mov) ).

Sorry i was upset, but to me there is a lot more to a car than having a big engine, looking "better", or going faster... generally not about "keeping up with the Jone's", for me (i know that my penis is big enough, thanks).
To say that this car "doesn't have enough power" seems completely insane to me: it's a bloody passenger vehicle. you wanna race it?? sure, fine, okay... i don't care. this thing is unargueably fast, makes gobs of torque for the engine it does have (i drive a 20 year old propane powered 2 ton forklift occasionally at work: don't talk to me about "lack of torque"), is geared aggresively, and comfortably, luxuriously, and affordably seats four in high style. yeah yeah, all in my opinion, but this is why i disagree.

so, like i said: you can go ahead and put a V8 in it, but i wouldn't.

Hercules

03-03-2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Did C&D weigh the vehicles? What were the curb weights?

Not that it changes anything for me but it's interesting to see that the 8 WILL require high rpm launches to get good acceleration times, dare I say just like the S2000? :p The one with the "peaky" engine and a "narrow" powerband? I remember a lot of people here, I'm sure Hercules was one of them :p , telling me how the 8 would NOT exhibit these characteristics for maximum acceleration.. hmm.. Sadly this does not seem to be the case.
Like I said, this article does not change anything for me, the 8 is still no 1 on my list for next spring, it just reaffirms what I thought this car would feel like, a high rpm performance machine with great handling dynamics. Let's not kid ourselves, the Renesis HAS to be revved to 9K rpm to get good performance, especially off the line and unfortunately this trait might sway some buyers away from this car.... I made some assumptions looking at the torque curve.. I guess you will get a 10th or two off from the 5.9 if you decide to launch from a lower yet safer 3500-4500 :)

P00Man

03-03-2003, 09:37 PM

lol, seriously, how many times a day do conditions require a 5.9 0-60?
________
California dispensaries (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

Hercules

03-03-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by P00Man
lol, seriously, how many times a day do conditions require a 5.9 0-60? If you are a teenager it's nearly every day.

Testosterone and hormones... as well as just being stupid.

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL TEENS, JUST THE MAJORITY :D

P00Man

03-03-2003, 09:55 PM

touche... however, that statement was towards MOST of you, the more matured (generally) group of 24-whatever.

nonetheless, well played.....well played indeed.......although i dont think CONDITIONS require, just stupid illusions,but than again, isnt everything just an illusion after all?
________
Lesbian live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/lesbian-couples/)

wakeech

03-03-2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by MrWigggles

Because it has three chambers, wouldn't it best be described as a three "stroke" engine?

-Mr. Wigggles

nah, the three chambers is like having three cylinders: the process is still the Four Stroke Otto Cycle, it just happens once every rotation of the e-shaft per rotor.

...can't remember what else i was gonna say.

Quick_lude

03-03-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by P00Man
touche... however, that statement was towards MOST of you, the more matured (generally) group of 24-whatever.

nonetheless, well played.....well played indeed.......although i dont think CONDITIONS require, just stupid illusions,but than again, isnt everything just an illusion after all?
That's what I meant when I said that a lot of people will not consider the 8 because of the launch characteristics.. Which is sad because the beauty of this car will shine once you get some momentum.. Just like the S2000 dare I say. Heck even my Prelude requires a 5,000+ rpm launch to get a 15.0 1/4 mile time.. I didn't really want to do that and launched around 4K and got a 15.2.. I can live with that, I'm not a 1/4 mile racer.

As for the articles top gear acceleration numbers, they do this by leaving the tranny in 6th and mash the throttle from 50mph? This clearly will NOT favour the Renesis or any other low torque/displacement engine.. Thank God I have the ability/knowledge how to downshift to 4th gear in those situations.. :p

Hercules

03-03-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Quick_lude

That's what I meant when I said that a lot of people will not consider the 8 because of the launch characteristics.. Which is sad because the beauty of this car will shine once you get some momentum.. Just like the S2000 dare I say. Heck even my Prelude requires a 5,000+ rpm launch to get a 15.0 1/4 mile time.. I didn't really want to do that and launched around 4K and got a 15.2.. I can live with that, I'm not a 1/4 mile racer.

As for the articles top gear acceleration numbers, they do this by leaving the tranny in 6th and mash the throttle from 50mph? This clearly will NOT favour the Renesis or any other low torque/displacement engine.. Thank God I have the ability/knowledge how to downshift to 4th gear in those situations.. :p Amen :)

5.0THIS

03-03-2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
as a V6 with two cylinders tacked on the back, i think they're just plain ugly... similar to using a sledge hammer to remove a car door a la Red Green. Also, i find that they only advantage they have over the rotary is that they have customarilly long strokes (distance from centre of rotation on the crank to the centre of the crank journal) allowing them to have really good amounts of torque. That is it. They don't even have more internal displacement (and ESPECIALLY capacity), or make more power per any metric you can think of. if you do come up with one, i'll chalk up another one for the heavy iron. and no, sound doesn't count, 'cause that's subjective anyways (listen to the 787B in this SevenStock movie (http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/movies/4-rotor_Le_Mans.mov) ).

Sorry

So a V6 is simply a V6 with two cylinders tacked on to the back??? hahaah! LMAO! You really dont know too much about engines do you? I have built more than a couple racing engines in my life.... and know a thing or two when it comes to V8s, and engines in general, as I used to be a tech. Your above logic is somewhat confusing and doesnt really make all that much sense... I'd really love to tell you that there is a replacement for displacement, but sadly, there isnt. And dont even try to go off about Vtech and such things as that. It's a simple fact that at a certain displacement you're only going to make so much power, through boost o spray or whatever means... and there will come a point where the only way to make more power is to increase displacement. And dont even try to use the arguement about "hp per liter".. that's ricer arguement and one often used by a car owner that just got the shit kicked out of him by a car with a higher displacement. And you keep talking about torque.... yeah, they do have that easily, but they also have horsepower, and tons of it. and dont argue weight, if my engine weighs 100 pounds more than yours, but produces 100hp more, I tihnk the trade off is a mute point. I'm not about to try to convince all you rotary-heads about the piston engine, but when it comes dow to it, there's a reason 99.9999% of cars ever manufactured use piston engines. And FYI guys, there are piston engines that make more power, get better fuel economy, and emission less than even the newest renesis. I'm sure many of you wouldnt bitch if mazda put in a high winding I-6 (ala M3) or possibly a charged V6.

Hercules

03-03-2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

So a V6 is simply a V6 with two cylinders tacked on to the back??? hahaah! LMAO! You really dont know too much about engines do you? I have built more than a couple racing engines in my life.... and know a thing or two when it comes to V8s, and engines in general, as I used to be a tech. Your above logic is somewhat confusing and doesnt really make all that much sense... I'd really love to tell you that there is a replacement for displacement, but sadly, there isnt. And dont even try to go off about Vtech and such things as that. It's a simple fact that at a certain displacement you're only going to make so much power, through boost o spray or whatever means... and there will come a point where the only way to make more power is to increase displacement. And dont even try to use the arguement about "hp per liter".. that's ricer arguement and one often used by a car owner that just got the shit kicked out of him by a car with a higher displacement. And you keep talking about torque.... yeah, they do have that easily, but they also have horsepower, and tons of it. and dont argue weight, if my engine weighs 100 pounds more than yours, but produces 100hp more, I tihnk the trade off is a mute point. I'm not about to try to convince all you rotary-heads about the piston engine, but when it comes dow to it, there's a reason 99.9999% of cars ever manufactured use piston engines. And FYI guys, there are piston engines that make more power, get better fuel economy, and emission less than even the newest renesis. I'm sure many of you wouldnt bitch if mazda put in a high winding I-6 (ala M3) or possibly a charged V6.
That M3 engine is only 3.2L, unlike the monster engines that reside in almost all the Japanese/American cars. They just get bigger and bigger.

I think what we are all waiting patiently for is the RX-7 that will have 300+ horses in a TEEENY rotary engine. That's the key here.. Sure the power can come from a bigger engine but the entire concept Mazda works on is taking the small rotary and making the car have handling advantages that others car simply DO NOT HAVE.

The FD is a great example of this... The RX-8 is going to be in the middle as it's a 'compromise' car for a family that can't afford to have a Miata to get some thrills in :)

We *will* argue about weight, because it's not the POWER it makes, but the MASSES moving side to side on turns. That's what makes the rotary great and unique. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you and your limited vision of things outside of displacement.

etang789

03-04-2003, 12:04 AM

Great article....!!!
I wonder why the latest C&D issue was missing in the library...haha....luckily i can still read this online, but the words are way to small for my eyes can hardly read it...especially late at night...
I wonder if this article will increase the demand for RX8 which could lead to jacked up price for the RX8...!!!
Hope Mazda well make sure the dealer is selling what it promised affordtable price....:cool:

5.0THIS

03-04-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Hercules

That M3 engine is only 3.2L, unlike the monster engines that reside in almost all the Japanese/American cars. They just get bigger and bigger.

I think what we are all waiting patiently for is the RX-7 that will have 300+ horses in a TEEENY rotary engine. That's the key here.. Sure the power can come from a bigger engine but the entire concept Mazda works on is taking the small rotary and making the car have handling advantages that others car simply DO NOT HAVE.

The FD is a great example of this... The RX-8 is going to be in the middle as it's a 'compromise' car for a family that can't afford to have a Miata to get some thrills in :)

We *will* argue about weight, because it's not the POWER it makes, but the MASSES moving side to side on turns. That's what makes the rotary great and unique. If you can't see that then I feel sorry for you and your limited vision of things outside of displacement.

I dont see a small I-6 or boosted I-4 weighing much more than the renesis, certainly not enough to alter the handling characteristics of the car greatly. Just saying that there are other ngine options of little weight and bigger power, and let's face it, a boosted rotary just doesnt have a good history of reliability.

wakeech

03-04-2003, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

I dont see a small I-6 or boosted I-4 weighing much more than the renesis, certainly not enough to alter the handling characteristics of the car greatly. Just saying that there are other ngine options of little weight and bigger power, and let's face it, a boosted rotary just doesnt have a good history of reliability.

first, boosted iron block I6's and 4's can easily tip the scales at more than an aluminum small block... second, the RENESIS weighs less than the S2000's F20C, which is an unboosted and fairly compact DOCH I4. uh, what was it Buger, 240lbs??

secondly, it's not just the mass, but the size of the engine which can influence vehicle dynamics, and you CAN NOT get more compact than the rotary, or much bigger than an engine with an FI system with all the trimmings.

thirdly, the boosted rotaries aren't go-forever workhorses, but they do last a good long time if cared for (in the 13BT, no one disputes that there were flaws in the early 13BREW designs). If Mazda was going to go for boost in the next RX-7 (which they're not), they obviously wouldn't make the same HUGE mistake twice.

wakeech

03-04-2003, 03:29 AM

*sigh* again, huh?? fine... i'm staying up late anyways...

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

So a V6 is simply a V6 with two cylinders tacked on to the back??? hahaah! LMAO! You really dont know too much about engines do you?

you obviously don't know much about American engineering, do you?? the firing order is the same as that statement would suggest, not to mention that is exactly how many of the first pushrod OHV V8's were designed (to save on parts, R+D, and machining costs... makes sense). you see it in boats and cars both. this is not so anymore for all of them (with guys like the LS6), but i digress: it is a fundamentally crappy layout due to the wonderful imbalance the "extra" two cylinders make. 'nuff said.

btw: i mean not to suggest that the entire engine is the same, plus two pistons; the blocks (and ingeral moving bits) are simply longer/shorter versions of each other.

Originally posted by 5.0THIS

I have built more than a couple racing engines in my life.... and know a thing or two when it comes to V8s, and engines in general, as I used to be a tech.

i'm happy for you. no, i've not built an entire engine (helped a little on some), and no i'm not employed at the shop i work at as a tech (just "the kid"), but i've read manuals, SAE papers, discussed ad nauseum many different design characteristics and principles with a good many smart people, and do know a thing or two about them myself.
by the way, why aren't you still a tech?? you walk and talk like a young guy...??

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
Your above logic is somewhat confusing and doesnt really make all that much sense... I'd really love to tell you that there is a replacement for displacement, but sadly, there isnt. And dont even try to go off about Vtech and such things as that. It's a simple fact that at a certain displacement you're only going to make so much power, through boost o spray or whatever means... and there will come a point where the only way to make more power is to increase displacement. And dont even try to use the arguement about "hp per liter".. that's ricer arguement and one often used by a car owner that just got the shit kicked out of him by a car with a higher displacement.

in fact there is, and you obviously didn't understand what i meant when i said "capacity". due to the wankel's unique mechanics, there is (as i've said before) one power stroke per rev per rotor. this means that there is also one full inspiration, and expiration cycle per revolution as well, per rotor. this means that the 1.3L RENESIS breathes as much as a 2.6L 4-stroke piston engine per revolution, ingoring inefficiencies.
there are also other wankel specific advantages, like a 270degree power stroke which really helps the motor use full advantage on its mere 10mm stroke. that mega short stroke, as it implies, also means the engine is naturally insanely oversquare(bore would be something like +5" if you calculated that for a piston), which definitely helps in the revs and power department. there are other things, but i've got much more to write.

actually, i will go off on "things like Vtech", because they do help engine of any displacement make better power, through increasing efficiency (and thus torque and thus power). why do you think that the greats of engine builders like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, and Honda (don't laugh) all use overhead cams?? just to have less reciprocating/rotating mass in the valve train?? that's one reason, but not the only one. being able to put more valves in a head means that you can have a greater oriface for better breathing at higher rates of flow, allowing for better power when the pedal is down and the revs are high. does the lower velocity of incoming air hurt efficiency, and thus torque, at the low end?? yes, but that's the tradeoff for more power, no matter the displacement. Also, now with cams that can advance or retard their timing, and even amount of lift ( :eek: ), efficiency is again enhanced, allowing for better torque and power no matter the displacement.
does that mean i think a Civic's 1.6L honda is gonna outdrag an old 302?? hell no, but the NSX's 3.2L Honda might (290hp, 224 lb.ft.), depending on the gearing.
as an aside, few engines can rival the wankel's inherent volumetric efficiency at a wide range of rpm, giving it a pretty flat torque curve (meaning it's pretty close to max torque it can make all the time).

the arguement about horsepower per litre isn't an excuse for having less overall power (and i'm not contesting that the RX-8 is going to outdrag anything with serious iron in it), but not a bad way to judge the effectiveness of a design; this is why engines are limited by it in top-flight racing, to promote better engineering, not to see who can bore bigger holes in a chunk of metal.
but no, i do not dispute that having a bigger volume of air and fuel burning at once isn't going to give you more power, it's just an inarticulate way of accomplishing it.

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
And you keep talking about torque.... yeah, they do have that easily, but they also have horsepower, and tons of it.

i never said they didn't, i'm saying that there are other (probably better) ways to get that power... albeit without the low end torque.

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
dont argue weight, if my engine weighs 100 pounds more than yours, but produces 100hp more, I tihnk the trade off is a mute point. I'm not about to try to convince all you rotary-heads about the piston engine, but when it comes dow to it, there's a reason 99.9999% of cars ever manufactured use piston engines.

mass is an extremely important metric, and depending upon what your marginal benefits of gaining both 100hp and 100lbs of mass would be your benefit; for instance, if you had a 500lb, 1200hp motor, you'd probably rather keep the extra 100lbs. off. if you had a 45lb 9.9hp motor (like an outboard), you'd probably be okay with a 100lb deficit for 100 more horses. but still, this issue grows more complex as you have to judge whether or not this heavier and more powerful motor will suit your needs in its intended application (ie: sled pulling versus karting). so no it's not a "mute" (by which i assume you mean moot) point.

there are many reasons that wankels aren't more widely developped, one being that very few car makers could get the apex seals to work well. Mazda did it first in a production car, much to the chagrin of GM, Daimler-Benz, and others.
another reason is that they were previously very bad on HC emissions (although wankels have inherently very low NO2/N2O4 emissions), which is not the case anymore.
also, the wankel is a highly undevelopped concept, with far more potential than has been extracted thus far. that potential lying in wait will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in R+D for manufacturers, and is not guaranteed to be found no matter what.
it's a risk, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's "too" different. there are many reasons, none of which are "piston engines are better in every way". seldom will you find one engineering solution which is not a comprimise: i happen to believe that the rotary is just a far better comprimise for a performance engine than a piston type.

Originally posted by 5.0THIS
And FYI guys, there are piston engines that make more power, get better fuel economy, and emission less than even the newest renesis. I'm sure many of you wouldnt bitch if mazda put in a high winding I-6 (ala M3) or possibly a charged V6.

oh, there is?? do tell. in my favourite comparison, the F20C (again, the motor in the S2000) which is highly comparable in application, intention, and size is inferior to the RENESIS in nearly every way. the RX-8's rotary makes more torque (and thus power) at ALL rpm, weighs less, is dimentionally smaller, consumes very close to equal amounts of fuel, and is as good if not better on emissions.
if you don't know, the F20C is widely regarded as one of the most advanced small piston engines in the world.

and yes, if Mazda ever put anything but a wankel in an RX model, i would abadon my love for cars entirely, and really question if life were worth living... a sell out of that magnitude would really suffer my confidence in humanity a terrible blow.

tribal: could i bother you to post a TASTEFUL "owned" pic for me?? thanks ;)

JSG

03-04-2003, 06:12 AM

Well if it is going to help solve any disputes or calm any of you guys down I have an S2000 and get my RX-8 next month so I'll do a comparison then. I can't believe all of the reviews so far have failed to compare it against the most similar car. If you look at the Mazda brochures all the weight/power curves and charts are so similar.

As for dropping the clutch at 8000rpm or whatever...you have to be joking. I've never done that in my S as I've never wanted to destroy the car. Where it is fun (and the RX-8 I think) will be in the 50-70 range blasting past people when you're on the high revs in a gear. That, plus the twisties where not many people can keep up with either.

Hank Woods

03-04-2003, 08:09 AM

I do not think the 8000 rpm launch is a big deal. Higher rpm
shift points and launches are inherent in the rotary engine.
The engine will be running quite smoothly at 8000 rpm. Notice
the position of the 0 on the tach. It is moved for a reason. There
are a lot of good threads in the tech section that discuss
the engine basics. Piston engine drivers will be amazed at the
smooth acceleration in this car. It is so smooth that most drivers
thus far are actually surprised to hear the limiter buzzer!

RXhusker

03-04-2003, 08:12 AM

I don't think the concern is with the engine handling 8000 rpm but with the clutch when those 8000k are dropped on (repeatedly):eek:

DreamWarrior

03-04-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by RXhusker
I don't think the concern is with the engine handling 8000 rpm but with the clutch when those 8000k are dropped on (repeatedly):eek:
I'm sure that will wind up being precisely the worry...however, I also wonder if you'll really lose that much off your time dropping it lower, like around 3-4k where it is a little safer. Personally, any time you dump the clutch you are going to ruin it faster than if you hadn't...so let's just hope Mazda realized that the clutch in this car will be taking some extra abuse for it to be "fun" and gave us a relatively high performance clutch. Otherwise, that'll probably be the first thing that ends up failing on mine...pity that's an expensvie fix too.

jbebernes

03-04-2003, 10:59 AM

I think the fact that c&d used a Mustang in the RX-8 comparo article simply highlights the difficulty in categorizing the 8. I still think the RX-8 is a sports car with four seats. The reviews we have seen so far simply confirm this. Great, handling, high revving car with sophisticated technology that involves the driver completely in the experience of driving.

On the other hand, my Mustang GT (my second one now) is a big unsophisticated powerplant stuffed into an aged chassis, sporting an interior design that is 10 years old. Did I mention the questionable exterior styling?

Yet I love it as an everyday driver. Gotta get around the lady in the Buick that mistakenly pulled up to the light next to you in the left turn only lane...and is now drifting over towards you? No problem, the big V-8 shrugs and yawns while making the move. Trying to merge in to the interstate, but about to get blocked by two semis? 40 - 80 happens mighty quickly with over 300 lb/ft of torque in a 3200 lb. car. Not sure I always want to have to downshift a gear or two in tight situations.

My Miata is the most satisfying car I have ever owned. Yet I drive it only on the weekends.

Finally, reading through this thread reminds me of the arguments my friends used to get into about Ford vs. Chevy. More than one of these arguments turned into a fistfight - and they were talking pick-up trucks!

I'm pretty sure there is room on the road for everyone...

rx8daniel

03-04-2003, 11:58 AM

The 1st and 2nd gen RX-7s were very reliable cars. However, for those who can rememer with me, Consumer Reports always warned to stay away from the manual tranny version of the car.
What other reason could there be than this exact situation - lots of clutch action to make the car move. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by the late 2nd gen and through the 3rd gens the clutch became less of a problem.

Another thing to keep in mind:

The RX-7 continued to be produced and sold in Japan until the recent end of it's run last year - help here! - I think the last special edition came out in August 2002 - so it's not like Mazda has forgotten any of the lessons learned from the RX7s.

Hank Woods

03-04-2003, 12:58 PM

The tranny is thoroughly tested by the Japan RX7 and
the testing of the RX8.The presale 0-60 6.0sec. estimate by
Mazda was based on hundreds of tests on their proving grounds.
The biggest risk is an amateur driver attempting to do what is
best left to the pro test drivers.

5.0THIS

03-04-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
*sigh* again, huh?? fine... i'm staying up late anyways...

you obviously don't know much about American engineering, do you?? the firing order is the same as that statement would suggest, not to mention that is exactly how many of the first pushrod OHV V8's were designed (to save on parts, R+D, and machining costs... makes sense). you see it in boats and cars both. this is not so anymore for all of them (with guys like the LS6), but i digress: it is a fundamentally crappy layout due to the wonderful imbalance the "extra" two cylinders make. 'nuff said.

btw: i mean not to suggest that the entire engine is the same, plus two pistons; the blocks (and ingeral moving bits) are simply longer/shorter versions of each other.

[/b]

i'm happy for you. no, i've not built an entire engine (helped a little on some), and no i'm not employed at the shop i work at as a tech (just "the kid"), but i've read manuals, SAE papers, discussed ad nauseum many different design characteristics and principles with a good many smart people, and do know a thing or two about them myself.
by the way, why aren't you still a tech?? you walk and talk like a young guy...??

[/b]

in fact there is, and you obviously didn't understand what i meant when i said "capacity". due to the wankel's unique mechanics, there is (as i've said before) one power stroke per rev per rotor. this means that there is also one full inspiration, and expiration cycle per revolution as well, per rotor. this means that the 1.3L RENESIS breathes as much as a 2.6L 4-stroke piston engine per revolution, ingoring inefficiencies.
there are also other wankel specific advantages, like a 270degree power stroke which really helps the motor use full advantage on its mere 10mm stroke. that mega short stroke, as it implies, also means the engine is naturally insanely oversquare(bore would be something like +5" if you calculated that for a piston), which definitely helps in the revs and power department. there are other things, but i've got much more to write.

actually, i will go off on "things like Vtech", because they do help engine of any displacement make better power, through increasing efficiency (and thus torque and thus power). why do you think that the greats of engine builders like Ferrari, BMW, Porsche, and Honda (don't laugh) all use overhead cams?? just to have less reciprocating/rotating mass in the valve train?? that's one reason, but not the only one. being able to put more valves in a head means that you can have a greater oriface for better breathing at higher rates of flow, allowing for better power when the pedal is down and the revs are high. does the lower velocity of incoming air hurt efficiency, and thus torque, at the low end?? yes, but that's the tradeoff for more power, no matter the displacement. Also, now with cams that can advance or retard their timing, and even amount of lift ( :eek: ), efficiency is again enhanced, allowing for better torque and power no matter the displacement.
does that mean i think a Civic's 1.6L honda is gonna outdrag an old 302?? hell no, but the NSX's 3.2L Honda might (290hp, 224 lb.ft.), depending on the gearing.
as an aside, few engines can rival the wankel's inherent volumetric efficiency at a wide range of rpm, giving it a pretty flat torque curve (meaning it's pretty close to max torque it can make all the time).

the arguement about horsepower per litre isn't an excuse for having less overall power (and i'm not contesting that the RX-8 is going to outdrag anything with serious iron in it), but not a bad way to judge the effectiveness of a design; this is why engines are limited by it in top-flight racing, to promote better engineering, not to see who can bore bigger holes in a chunk of metal.
but no, i do not dispute that having a bigger volume of air and fuel burning at once isn't going to give you more power, it's just an inarticulate way of accomplishing it.

[/b]

i never said they didn't, i'm saying that there are other (probably better) ways to get that power... albeit without the low end torque.

[/b]

mass is an extremely important metric, and depending upon what your marginal benefits of gaining both 100hp and 100lbs of mass would be your benefit; for instance, if you had a 500lb, 1200hp motor, you'd probably rather keep the extra 100lbs. off. if you had a 45lb 9.9hp motor (like an outboard), you'd probably be okay with a 100lb deficit for 100 more horses. but still, this issue grows more complex as you have to judge whether or not this heavier and more powerful motor will suit your needs in its intended application (ie: sled pulling versus karting). so no it's not a "mute" (by which i assume you mean moot) point.

there are many reasons that wankels aren't more widely developped, one being that very few car makers could get the apex seals to work well. Mazda did it first in a production car, much to the chagrin of GM, Daimler-Benz, and others.
another reason is that they were previously very bad on HC emissions (although wankels have inherently very low NO2/N2O4 emissions), which is not the case anymore.
also, the wankel is a highly undevelopped concept, with far more potential than has been extracted thus far. that potential lying in wait will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in R+D for manufacturers, and is not guaranteed to be found no matter what.
it's a risk, it's difficult, it's expensive, it's "too" different. there are many reasons, none of which are "piston engines are better in every way". seldom will you find one engineering solution which is not a comprimise: i happen to believe that the rotary is just a far better comprimise for a performance engine than a piston type.

oh, there is?? do tell. in my favourite comparison, the F20C (again, the motor in the S2000) which is highly comparable in application, intention, and size is inferior to the RENESIS in nearly every way. the RX-8's rotary makes more torque (and thus power) at ALL rpm, weighs less, is dimentionally smaller, consumes very close to equal amounts of fuel, and is as good if not better on emissions.
if you don't know, the F20C is widely regarded as one of the most advanced small piston engines in the world.

and yes, if Mazda ever put anything but a wankel in an RX model, i would abadon my love for cars entirely, and really question if life were worth living... a sell out of that magnitude would really suffer my confidence in humanity a terrible blow.

tribal: could i bother you to post a TASTEFUL "owned" pic for me?? thanks ;) [/B]

Yeah, you sure owned me bud, I am feeling the pain for sure. I'm done trying to convince people that have a die-hard love for an engine that just isnt........ all it has is uniqueness, and that's it. Give me an engine that has more power and weighs 100 pounds more and I'll make it quicker at any autocross. BTW wakeech, I have been racing professionally for years, and I started in sprint karts at age 13. And BTW man, you really dont have anything to do, do you? I am no longer a tech because I decided I didnt want to go that route, I am currently going through the application process for the Colorado State Patrol.

DVanditmars

03-04-2003, 04:36 PM

Well this article is just great!
I am currently driving a 3rd Gen RX-7 for the past 6 years.
I am currently looking the RX-8 or the 2004 Mustang, (new body style) as potential buys.
Although it is not the same Mustang, I am sure it wont be that different.
May have to wait for a super-charged RX-8?

ZoomZoom

03-04-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by DVanditmars

Well this article is just great!
I am currently driving a 3rd Gen RX-7 for the past 6 years.
I am currently looking the RX-8 or the 2004 Mustang, (new body style) as potential buys.
Although it is not the same Mustang, I am sure it wont be that different.
May have to wait for a super-charged RX-8?

Welcome to the forum DVanditmars.

No offense but these two cars are miles apart! If you are looking for a good straight line fast car with lots of torque I suggest that you get the Mustang. However, if you are looking for a good handling lightweight car your search has ended. :cool:

P00Man

03-04-2003, 07:14 PM

why dont both of you stop whining at eachother?

you both make good (somewhat) and valid (somewhat) points, but apparently both of you are too pigheaded to acknowledge that either engine form is not the only solution and that both have advantages over the other.

so please, stop the whining, though its informitive at times, the baby-talk and idiotic verbal assualts take away anything that can be gained.
________
Vapezilla (http://vaporizers.net)

7to8

03-04-2003, 07:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rx8daniel
[B]The 1st and 2nd gen RX-7s were very reliable cars. However, for those who can rememer with me, Consumer Reports always warned to stay away from the manual tranny version of the car.
What other reason could there be than this exact situation - lots of clutch action to make the car move. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe by the late 2nd gen and through the 3rd gens the clutch became less of a problem.

I have a first gen RX-7 GSL-SE and the clutch was fine until 85000 miles..no transmisson problems...great car >I have had it for 17 years and am going to park it next to my RX-8.

wakeech

03-04-2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by P00Man
why dont both of you stop whining at eachother?

both of you are too pigheaded

idiotic verbal assualts take away anything that can be gained.

heh heh heh... true enough.

nothin' personal 5.0THIS, sorry dude.

Skyline Maniac

03-06-2003, 03:04 AM

Congrats guys :D

Infiniti vs Mazda, LOL

Hercules

03-06-2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Congrats guys :D

Infiniti vs Mazda, LOL
I don't think so.. The RX-8 is a more niche car than the G35 just due to the rotary engine, the lower straight line power and suicide doors.

If I didn't like the uniqueness and innovativeness of the RX-8 over the G35 then I'd probably be getting a G35 Coupe now. However power isn't paramount to me -- handling and fun factor are. I think C&D shares my view and that's why the RX-8 took top honors. I think more than a few magazine writers/editors share my view in fact, which is why the RX-8 thus far, has gotten rave reviews :)

But it won't be Infiniti vs Mazda until the RX-7 comes out... then we will all be yammerin and yackin about which is better. Being biased, I'll put my early vote in for the RX-7 :)

rx8daniel

03-06-2003, 07:44 AM

Granted many buyers of the RX-8 are on the younger side of the buying spectrum - we're not getting a lot of great-grandparents - but I'm 42 - and can't wait for the RX-8. For those of us who enjoy the smoothness and reliability of the rotary, there is simply no comparison. I will say Infiniti has a very nice and more practical version of the 350Z in their G35 - but with no RX-8 out there I'd be looking at a Mazda 6s very seriously.

Skyline Maniac

03-06-2003, 09:01 AM

Hercules, you mentioned uniqueness, which is very important. Regardless of what I drive, I think it is important for auto manufacturers to keep an open mind on new technology. Mazda is known for innovations and testing new technologies. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. A quick review of Mazda history will show that this is a company that survived through taking daring chances.

If there was no rotary, there 'd with only ONE type of engine for the human race - piston. I can't imagine that..... (almost like Microsoft vs Apple war, only it has to do with internal combustion engines) Kind of make you wonder sometimes though, if Rotary is as great as Mazda claims it to be, then why don't they use it for ALL their cars? Does the rotary have to stay at such small displacement, and limited to be used only on light weight sport cars? I'd bet a rotary powered motocycle would be something to behold.

rael

03-06-2003, 09:02 AM

I think its less an age but more of a car substitution. Mazda are clearly targeting specific car owners irrespective of age by offering a product they consider to be better.

To be honest were it not for the RX8 I would not be buying Mazda. I think there is superior build quality in the market without a substantial premium.

rael

wakeech

03-06-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
if Rotary is as great as Mazda claims it to be, then why don't they use it for ALL their cars? Does the rotary have to stay at such small displacement, and limited to be used only on light weight sport cars? I'd bet a rotary powered motocycle would be something to behold.

the deal with the wankel type is, as i said before at length, you can't really design it to have a ton of torque. in an application like towing, you'd need an engine that pulls HARD at low rpm to get all that mass moving, unless you really don't mind replacing your clutch/tyres (whatever does most of the slipping) every other week (buzzing and dropping, using gears to make the torque).
also, the wankel type DOES suck up a lot of gas for a passenger car engine, and although emissions aren't a problem anymore (with better cats and expiration system internally now) with HC's, you'd still be better off with a tinier, sipping piston engine which (with a long stroke) can be very driveable at low rpm all the time.

no, Mazda doesn't "have" to keep the rotary at "such a small" displacement (which is actually at 2.6L of capacity... read my long post on the page before), but this seems (for whatever reason) to be a really nice size for them to make it. on the next RX-7, the word on the street is that it'll get a RENESIS that's beefier by a few hundred cc's (which'll add up to tons more power).
as for "only light weight sports cars", the engine (as i said above) really doesn't have many other natural applications... and sports cars that are light weight are inherently better than heavy sports cars ;) always.

there were NSU manufactured motorcycles, but they found that a single rotor engine was pretty lumpy at low rpm... and for low displacement engines (ie: 50-250cc) a single piston 2-stroke is probably lighter, smoother, just-as if not more powerful (there's been so little development of the wankel in this application), and not much more complicated.
on the other hand though, yes, i would certainly think that the wankel would eat a 600-1000+cc 4-stroke motor bike engine for breakfast, where it would be smaller, lighter, and far FAR more powerful.

Lensman

03-06-2003, 02:07 PM

'The RX-8 is going to be in the middle as it's a 'compromise' car for a family that can't afford to have a Miata to get some thrills in ...'

I REALLY didn't want to hear this from someone as authoritative as Hercules. Despite having put a deposit down on the RX-8 I may well reverse my decision and go back to my first choice of the 350Z. Not happy AT all!

zoom44

03-06-2003, 02:12 PM

don't take one man's word for it, especially Herc's. to get a real driving impression of the car go read dan's and bern's (http://www.rotarynews.com) write-ups from their laguna seca run. these guy's are both hard core rotor nuts and they came away very impressed!

Lensman

03-06-2003, 05:40 PM

On reflection I think that Hercules' comment about the Miata (or MX5 as we Brits call it) wasn't as dubious as I first thought. At first reading it implied the RX-8 to be inferior to the MX5 but that clearly isn't so. The handling is at least as good and the power substantially better. It's true that the design is a compromise and I should applaud that and not get upset by it. I think the weight of 'low torque = bad' comments throughout this thread just got to me and I freaked out a bit. I did the obvious thing and looked at some S2000 reviews: nearly all express the opinion that the high revving low(er) torque engine is a delight to use and that the car is more fun than a barrel full of stoned monkeys. I'm kinda happy that I ordered blue now because I'll get to read many genuine owner reviews before I have to commit to delivery and that should nail the truth!

Hercules

03-06-2003, 06:11 PM

Ooo I didn't even notice your complaint :)

Yea I didn't intend to say the Miata was superior to the RX-8. The RX-8 is a compromise car in that it's not full performance or full usability... much like the BMW 3 series and such. The no-compromise design would likely be found in the RX-7.

P00Man

03-06-2003, 08:19 PM

rx-7 is going to be a beast to behold.....pure sports machine to misuse many another sport vehicle!
________
Rent guarantee forum (http://www.insurance-forums.org/rent-guarantee/)

zerobanger

03-07-2003, 10:21 AM

zoom44

03-07-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Hercules
I have a quick question for you guys...

Why would features and amenities be a 10 on the G35 Coupe, and only a 5 on the RX-8? What's the RX-8 missing?

i was wondering that too and spent some time carefully going thru the article and the pics and this is one glaring error that i found

http://www.rx8forum.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=32612

it's hard to see in this scan so everyone grab their copies of the mag......

go ahead get it.......

we don't have all day people.......

ok everyone look at the pic with csaba melonhead in the back seat. you can just see part of the other back seat that is closer to you. IT'S CLOTH!!! don't try to argue i have looked at every pic of the cloth and that my friends is cloth. still not convinced? fine look at the backof the driver's seat. NO SEA OF PLASTIC! why? BECAUSE IT"S A CLOTH SEAT!!

also in the part about the g35c they say fully loaded the car came out to nearly $38,000 dollars! well that's a substanial amount over the loaded rx-8 so it better have more amenities and nicer LEATHER for that price!

wakeech

03-07-2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger

the 87 turbo II ran 0-60 in 6.6, the 91 TII ran 0-60 in 6.3. The FD ran 0-60 in 4.9-5.2.

:o pardon me. :D i'm a big FC fan... oops. heh heh.

well, maybe i was thinking the NA's?? anyways, my point is that i regard the TII as a car more than fast enough for me, and the RX-8 is faster than that, in every way you can think of... in short, the RX-8 is friggin' quick.

zoom44

03-07-2003, 01:29 PM

go get your copy of the mag keech and turn to the proper page! GLARE!:D

edboc

03-07-2003, 01:50 PM

As a rotary fan, and someone that wanted to buy an RX-7 instead of a M3 (didn't happen because I couldn't find one), I am pretty excited about the C&D article. I have been reading that the 0-60 times would be about 6.5, but I guess those were underestimated. I think it was a great idea to have 4 doors, and the styling of the car seems to be much better than the 350Z and G35. I've driven both the 350z and G35, and wasn't incredibly impressed with either one. I guess I'm spoiled by my car. One question that my friend brought up is why wasn't the 330ci or 325ci included in the test.

P00Man

03-11-2003, 07:00 PM

at least the m3 is pretty hot.

anyways, im very pleased about this article, i can make fun of more people now! blahHAHAHA
________
MARIJUANA HEMP (http://marijuanahemp.com)

Speedbuggy

05-27-2003, 09:58 PM

I just can't believe how ignorant some people are. Of COURSE an engine close to four times the size will make more power. Duuuuuh. Remember, this particular example of the rotary technology is very small. 1.3 liter displacement, very low size and weight, it is an engine much smaller than what goes in your average Escort or Corolla and yet puts out numbers that eats alive the large Mustang V8's of only a few years ago. That means it's a better technology. Performance is a measure of power versus weight. Pound for pound, liter for liter, it is vastly superior and the numbers prove it.

By way of comparison, 1.3 liters is 1300cc, which is around the size of the engines they use in large sportbikes these days and is actually smaller than the engines in the larger cruiser-style bikes. Yes, I mean motorcycle engines. The Kawasaki ZX-12 and Yamaha V-Max are 1200cc and the Suzuki Hayabusa is 1300cc, while the biggest Valkyrie engine is a whopping 1.8 liters or 1800cc.

Thus, when an engine comparable in size to a friggin' motorcycle engine makes impressive enough numbers to power a sportscar and do so pretty darned well, you don't think that's superior technology? Helloooo?

The Renesis is a SMALL motor, not an all out power machine. You want to play in the big leagues? Take one look at the 2.0 liter 3-rotor 20B that only gets made in japan because they don't think we can handle it. With boost, 400 horsepower is low-end, 5-600 horsepower in streetable applications is not even close to uncommon. With the side-port technology of the Renesis in a 3-rotor configuration, one could reasonably expect similar numbers with no need of boost. And all at well under half the size and weight of your vaunted V-8. I call that a replacement for displacement.

To take the argument to it's logical extreme, a rotory engine (a 4-rotor maybe?) at 4.0 liters (still smaller than the 4.6 Cobra engine) would be twice the size of the 20B and could be reasonably expected to make twice the horsepower. That would mean an astronomical 8-1200 horsepower, on pump gas stock out of the box. Without boost. Out of an engine the size of the little 4-banger they put in the Protege.

The day you can match that is the day you have an argument. Have a nice life.

Hercules

05-27-2003, 10:23 PM

Speedbuggy you are my personal hero :p

Cept let's not get tooooo condescending now :D

Speedbuggy

05-27-2003, 11:32 PM

Sorry Hercules, I don't usually get that harsh on people but well that guy kinda made me angry. He seemed to me like he needed put back in his place. Sorry if I was out of line.

Oh, good news for me! Mazda may be putting out the car of my dreams that I fantasized about a few months back on these boards. According to rotarynews.com , Mazda is giving serious consideration to a new RX-3 project! Nothing is confirmed yet, but the expectation is for it to be a small car under $20K with RWD, two doors, and a lower-power, higher-economy version of the Renesis. I'm expecting it to be something like either a two-door MSProtege or an updated MX-3, a sport compact car to compete with the likes of the Sentra SE-R and Neon SVT-4.

Keep your fingers crossed, and it might be a reality one day. Then those rotorheads like me who think the RX-8 is a bit too much car for a bit too much money for them can own it's little brother instead. And then the true spirit of the first generation RX-7, the idea of a fun, inexpensive rotory-powered sportscar for the everyman and not just the elite will have been reborn.

Hercules

05-27-2003, 11:42 PM

You made all the right and good points in your response, just do it without the "I can't believe..." etc :)

Don't worry, I've been guilty of it too; when the RX-8 beat the G35 Coupe in C&D some time ago, you can just IMAGINE how many trolls we got on this forum... so I had a tendency to blow my fuse quickly :)

revhappy

05-28-2003, 12:02 AM

I'd love to see a modern day RX3. :) It sounds like a perfect fit for some form of the renesis.

Speedbuggy

05-29-2003, 02:06 PM

I'll rememebr that, Hercules. Again, sorry I got a bit too hotheaded there.

Revhappy:

I agree completely! I'd be thrilled to get the 210 HP low-power Renesis mated to a nice 5-speed in a package like a sported-up two-door Protege or updated MX-3. Especially in a price range comparable to the Sentra SE-R, Mazdaspeed Protege, and Neon SRT-4. Then again I love sport compacts anyhow. I figure with the weight savings of the Renesis motor and a few weightsaving measures for performance a car like that could easily come in under 2500 pounds and be an absolute blast to drive. It won't be in the leage of the RX-8 or especially not the RX-7, of course, but it should dominate it's class. And well, there are always upgrades if you want to get mega-serious.

Charleston

06-15-2003, 11:15 AM

I read the article and the 8 tested quite well. I like the cornering capability and on the video posted elsewhere the sliding of the G35 in corners is quite disturbing to me. Hope you G35 lovers enjoy buying new tires and that squel so often associated with the point of beginning to lose it. The RX-8 corners like a champ and that is great engineering. It will be fun. Zoom Zoom.

Hercules

06-15-2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Charleston
I read the article and the 8 tested quite well. I like the cornering capability and on the video posted elsewhere the sliding of the G35 in corners is quite disturbing to me. Hope you G35 lovers enjoy buying new tires and that squel so often associated with the point of beginning to lose it. The RX-8 corners like a champ and that is great engineering. It will be fun. Zoom Zoom.
I think the G35 runs on nicer tires than the RX-8... just a tip :)

Speedbuggy

06-15-2003, 11:42 AM

That's perhaps the most important part of the picture, here. The 8 is balanced and nimble and handles predictably and well. The 1.3 Renesis is underpowered compared with the other cars, so what? The motor is built to take boost, and I find it hard to imagine greater power won't be found both in the aftermarket and in option packages later. In fact I would not at all be surprised to see later models come equipped with the larger rotary they are supposed to be designing for the new RX-7, which will presumably be a 14C. This is after all a first year car. Remember, the Miata was introduced with a 1.6 and later went to a bigger more powerful engine as the model was refined and improved.

My point is, you can always increase raw horsepower. That's relatively easy to fix. What you can never do is add in nimbleness, light weight, balance, good handling characteristics, and the like to a car after it's been engineered. A Mustang or Camaro will always be a brick with a lot of horsepower under it, because that's how the car is constructed from the frame on up. Sure you can beef up the suspension and help handling somewhat as a result, but how are you going to easily change weight balance, steering geometry, turning radius, any of those things? Fact is, you can't. But Mazda engineered all those qualities into the car from the drawing board stage onwards, so you don't have to try to somehow repair those deficiencies later. They put their time and effort into making sure the car is right in ways that cannot be easily changed after the fact, so what you're starting with is an inherently better product. That's exactly the right approach.

The RX-8 already has advantages it's competitors cannot match. Given a bit more power, either aftermarket upgrades or improved stock specs later, and they will translate into a lead that no one else will be able to touch.

And just wait until the 7 comes out. If Mazda can translate what they've done with the 8 into a pure, balls-to-the-wall screaming sportscar, then Corvette owners might have to get used to the sight of Mazda tail-lights.

Hercules

06-15-2003, 11:55 AM

Thanks Speed, good summary :)

Haris

06-22-2003, 12:04 PM

Since they got 5.9 seconds 0-60 with 8K clutch drop, I wonder if you get 9K clutch drop what 0-60 would be. It might spin wheels too much to even be slower, but it might always be a bit faster.

The Beav

06-22-2003, 12:19 PM

i think the lack of mid-range torque is something to due with teh lack of teh 5 and 6 port being stuck on the pre-production cars, i want to see a car review of a production model (with fully functional 5 and 6 ports)

P00Man

06-23-2003, 04:20 AM

wow, havent visited this thread in a while...nice post speedbuggy

yeah, a rotary in an mx-3 type car would be pretty cool

the renesis is really an incredible design when you actually think about it
________
KAWASAKI KX100 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_KX100)

Speedbuggy

06-23-2003, 10:37 PM

Thanx for the compliment! *smile* I appreciate the feedback and it's good to know I'm making a positive contribution.

I agree with you 100% on the amazing job they've done with the Renesis. I think that even after they do the bigger rotary they're planning they should keep the current engine for their smaller platforms. The Miata for one could benefit tremenduously from such an engine, as could a prospective RX-3 or even possible use in a Mazdaspeed Protege or the like. The horsepower and torque numbers might not be impressive when placed against open-class powercars like the Z, Mustang, Corvette, and others, but in a small-car class such as competing against the likes of the Neon SRT-4, Sentra SE-R, and Integra R-Type it would be absolutely dominating. Especially when you consider the potential it has when a bit of boost is added... it is -already- in the power league of most of it's turbocharged competition, with boost of it's own the only thing even close will be the Evo and even then there's advantages in weight, cost and reliability. A 300-plus horsepower 4-cylinder is NOT a street engine, IMO, it's tuned to it's limits and will wear like it. There's a reason they don't warranty those things the way they do everything else. It's a blown motor waiting to happen. A 300 horsepower Renesis, on the other hand, is well within safe and reliable tolerances. Advantage: Mazda.

As to the launch question, I recall it being said that 90% of the engine's available torque came in at like 4500 RPM if not lower. That would mean that you should be easily able to launch at that RPM and get the vast majority of the car's performance while not dogging it so much. What could the difference be between 90% and 100%, a few tenths of a second maybe? Good luck telling the difference without a stopwatch. Head-to-head racing and paper statistics are the only real ways that will make any noticable difference at all. You won't know it when you're driving it, and that's what counts. What you -will- feel and notice when you're driving, however, is how the car corners and the way it handles when you're putting it through it's paces. A fraction of a second is imperceptible to human senses, but a 10 or 20 mph difference in the speed the car can handle a given corner is -very- noticable. I think Mazda put it's focus in the right place.

By the way, you know how you can tell when a car company is moving in the -wrong- direction? I test drove a late 90's Toyota Corolla last year and ended up giving it back in disgust because my '81 Corolla handled corners far better and was more fun to drive. Oh but the new one had cup holders! And cruise control and power crap on the doors and windows and all kinds of standard ameneties we didn't dream of on the old car! *gag* And they wonder why they're having to launch an all-new brand to try to get anyone under 40 to buy their cars.