I know I'm going to get called a troll but here it is. I saw Car and Driver television. They loved the RX-8 but said that it needed more power in the 3k-5k rpm range. Everyone in the world Acknowledges that the RX-8 has limited torque. But mention that here and you get shot down. You guys need to come to the reality that the RX8 has flaws, namely the lack of low-end grunt.

I have not posted here in about 2 months. I was considering the RX-8 but its S2000 like torque characteristics turn me off. It's a legitimate gripe. Rather than shoot everyone who mentions the RX-8's shortcomings, people here should acknowledge that fact and stress the RX8's strong points. Some folks respond respectfully, but most of the responses to RX8 criticism usually ends with the word "troll"

Personally, I'm waiting for the supercharged version to see if the RX-8 is for me. The normally aspirated RX8 does not have the Low-End torque that many people (Car & driver included) would like to have. Call me a troll, call me whatever, but at least I'm man enough to admit shortcomings in a vehicle that I love. It seems that if anything is said negative about the RX8, people here take it very, very personal. The RX-8 is a very nice car. The RX-8 has advantages and disadvantages over the competition. No car is perfect but if the RX-8 had about 50lbft more of torque it would be perfect for me. For people who do not need the low-end torque the RX8 more than delivers. I can understand the extreme enthusiasm for the RX8, it is a sweet car. I just wish it had G35/ 330i low end torque characteristics instead of S2000 torque characteristics. Everyone knows and acknowledges that the S2000 is a Dog down low.

I am one of those guys that could care less about the torque. I love the 8 for it's looks. The rotary, the carbon fiber drive shaft, the handleing, the seats, the 4 person seating, the freestyle doors. The knowledge that I will own the only Production 4 door 4seater rotary in the WORLD ha ha ha

That is your opinion and there is no reason why you can't express it.

I think that if you have a reasonable complaint that is fine. It is just these people who come here and say 'The RX-8 is crap' simply to annoy people that should be banned.

By all means, if you have a specific complaint I want to hear about it. I came here to learn about the car, good and bad.

I personally like cars you have to rev to get the best out of, but I can understand that that is not for everyone.

So if you want to complain about the lack of torque, please do so cause I want to hear it.

I think everyone well understands the power and torque characteristics of the Renesis. I believe what the guy on C&D TV said was that when you are cruising in top gear at 3-5k and punch the accelerator -- it just doesn't seem to have a lot of pull -- doesn't pin you to the seat (ala the Z). That is a reasonable comment to make. I really don't care because I know how to downshift :D and realize that 6th is for highway gas mileage not high speed passing.

I too find myself dreaming of a higher power RX, but then I remind myself that it is just human nature to want more -- no matter what you have. I loved my first gen RX-7 and it would be considered pathetic now in the power department. I am not sure that many people here will ever really push the performance limits of this car as it stands -- much less one with substantially more power. For most it is just always wanting more and thinking someone out there has more (Z).

I don’t think you are alone in your concern about the RX-8 being torque deficient, though I am pretty confident that whatever it has will be plenty for me. I enjoy rowing the gears so shifting will not bother me. If the engine will rev into its power band as quickly as we are told, I don’t foresee a problem.

Considering that none of us have actually driven the RX-8 (that I’m aware of) and no one has driven a production RX-8, it’s really too early to make a judgment anyway. I haven't driven a S2000 for that matter so I can't really compare it to that either. I’ll wait and drive one for myself and make up my own mind. I haven't pre-ordered, so I have the flexiblity of not buying one if I don't like it. That being said, I expect to LOVE it and expect to buy one in early 2004.

Why don't you just wait and drive one before saying yeh or nay. I like the look and the concept of the car but I have no plans to put any money down, sight unseen. The way I test a car to see if I like the power is to take it out on the highway, at my normal cruising speed and see how well I can pass other cars. I have not found any cars that throw you in your seat without downshifting to pass.

My 01 Miata only has 140hp, my 91 Miata has about 100hp and I have no problems driving them or passing other cars, they are just a ball to throw around. The thought of 250 in a car just a bit bigger then the Miata should more then meet my needs even if it does have a roof.

Originally posted by Midnight Flyer
I have not found any cars that throw you in your seat without downshifting to pass.

I have, that's why low end torque is important to me, you don't have to downshift. The power is always there.

Try test drivng a 330i or a G35/350z. You can still feel the power in high gear @4000 plus RPM. I like effortless power.

all this banter about torque... many people here haven't driven one.. ask some of the people who have. Dan and Bern from rotarynews... Derrick Berg from Texas.. and other who have driven it.. trust me.. noone I have talked to has been very sad about the lack of torque.

:)


enjoy.. and good luck..

Originally posted by Spoonie
I know I'm going to get called a troll but here it is.

TROLL

Originally posted by RX8Lover


TROLL

LOL, My post was mature your response is childish. Grow up.
But hey, I was expecting stupid comments like yours. Trolls are people who write threads to upset people. All I did was state the truth about the RX8's shortcomings. I guess you can't handle the truth. I don’t know what's worse, people who cannot or will not except the truth or trolls.

I’m hoping that you were just joking, if not you need to learn to accept a little constructive criticism. Later

It was meant as a joke. I would have thought someone would have beat me to it. But since no one did, I thought I would be the first.

Originally posted by RX8Lover
It was meant as a joke. I would have thought someone would have beat me to it. But since no one did, I thought I would be the first.

Sorry, You should have put a smiley face :-) after your comment. Sorry again.

I like everything about the 8 but the torque issue concerns me. I worry that I will wind up voiding my warranty be engaging in aftermarket modifications to fix an obvious issue that should have been addressed by Mazda initially. Of course that is just my naive opinion what do I know.

What bugs me the most is when the word "S2000" gets mentioned in any Rotary forum, it gets constantly gets blasted for having "no torque". But the same people who criticized the powerband on the Honda, are suddenly defending the characteristics of the RX-8. Leads me to believe there is strong brand bias on Mazda boards (as there is on other boards).

For me, I'm a huge fan of the RX-8 because of its peaky powerplant. I see it as a compelling reason to buy rather than a downside. I've run out of breath trying to defend the F20C on message boards, and it seems like Renesis owners will be picking up where I left off. :)

I am not sure what you all are talking about --what is torque and how will effect by ability to go from 0 to 60.

I didn't write this, but it looks like a reasonably unbiased account of the 2 forces of motion.


The Case For Torque

Now, what does all this mean in carland?

First of all, from a driver's perspective, torque, to use the
vernacular, RULES :-). Any given car, in any given gear, will accelerate at a rate that *exactly* matches its torque curve (allowing for increased air and rolling resistance as speeds climb).

Another way of saying this is that a car will accelerate hardest at its torque peak in any given gear, and will not accelerate as hard below that peak, or above it. Torque is the only thing that a driver feels, and horsepower is just sort of an esoteric measurement in that context. 300 foot pounds of torque will accelerate you just as hard at 2000 rpm as it would if you were making that torque at 4000 rpm in the same gear, yet, per the formula, the horsepower would be *double* at 4000 rpm.

Therefore, horsepower isn't particularly meaningful from a driver's perspective, and the two numbers only get friendly at 5252 rpm, where horsepower and torque always come out the same.

In contrast to a torque curve (and the matching pushback into your seat), horsepower rises rapidly with rpm, especially when torque values are also climbing. Horsepower will continue to climb, however, until well past the torque peak, and will continue to rise as engine speed climbs, until the torque curve really begins to plummet, faster than engine rpm is rising. However, as I said, horsepower has nothing to do with what a driver *feels*.


Fine. Take your non turbo car (turbo lag muddles the results) to its torque peak in first gear, and punch it. Notice the belt in the back? Now take it to the power peak, and punch it. Notice that the belt in the back is a bit weaker? Fine. Can we go on, now? :-)


The Case For Horsepower

OK. If torque is so all-fired important, why do we care about horsepower?

Because (to quote a friend), "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*.

For an extreme example of this, I'll leave carland for a moment, and describe a waterwheel I got to watch awhile ago. This was a pretty massive wheel (built a couple of hundred years ago), rotating lazily on a shaft which was connected to the works inside a flour mill. Working some things out from what the people in the mill said, I was able to determine that the wheel typically generated about 2600(!) foot pounds of torque. I had clocked its speed, and determined that it was rotating at about 12 rpm. If we hooked that wheel to, say, the drivewheels of a car, that car would go from zero to twelve rpm in a flash, and the waterwheel would hardly notice :-).

On the other hand, twelve rpm of the drivewheels is around one mph for the average car, and, in order to go faster, we'd need to gear it up. To get to 60 mph would require gearing the wheel up enough so that it would be effectively making a little over 43 foot pounds of torque at the output, which is not only a relatively small amount, it's less than what the average car would need in order to actually get to 60. Applying the conversion formula gives us the facts on this. Twelve times twenty six hundred, over five thousand two hundred fifty two gives us:

6 HP.

Oops. Now we see the rest of the story. While it's clearly true that the water wheel can exert a *bunch* of force, its *power* (ability to do work over time) is severely limited.


At The Dragstrip
OK. Back to carland, and some examples of how horsepower makes a major difference in how fast a car can accelerate, in spite of what torque on your backside tells you :-).

A very good example would be to compare the current LT1 Corvette with the last of the L98 Vettes, built in 1991. Figures as follows:


Engine Peak HP @ RPM Peak Torque @ RPM

------ ------------- -----------------

L98 250 @ 4000 340 @ 3200

LT1 300 @ 5000 340 @ 3600


The cars are geared identically, and car weights are within a few pounds, so it's a good comparison.

First, each car will push you back in the seat (the fun factor) with the same authority - at least at or near peak torque in each gear.
One will tend to *feel* about as fast as the other to the driver, but the LT1 will actually be significantly faster than the L98, even though it won't pull any harder. If we mess about with the formula, we can begin to discover exactly *why* the LT1 is faster.

Here's another slice at that formula:


Horsepower * 5252

Torque = -----------------

RPM


If we plug some numbers in, we can see that the L98 is making 328 foot pounds of torque at its power peak (250 hp @ 4000), and we can infer that it cannot be making any more than 263 pound feet of torque at 5000 rpm, or it would be making more than 250 hp at that engine speed, and would be so rated. In actuality, the L98 is probably making no more than around 210 pound feet or so at 5000 rpm, and anybody who owns one would shift it at around 46-4700 rpm, because more torque is available at the drive wheels in the next gear at that point.
On the other hand, the LT1 is fairly happy making 315 pound feet at 5000 rpm, and is happy right up to its mid 5s redline.

So, in a drag race, the cars would launch more or less together. The L98 might have a slight advantage due to its peak torque occuring a little earlier in the rev range, but that is debatable, since the LT1 has a wider, flatter curve (again pretty much by definition, looking at the figures). From somewhere in the mid range and up, however, the LT1 would begin to pull away. Where the L98 has to shift to second (and throw away torque multiplication for speed), the LT1 still has around another 1000 rpm to go in first, and thus begins to widen its lead, more and more as the speeds climb. As long as the revs are high, the LT1, by definition, has an advantage.

Another example would be the LT1 against the ZR-1. Same deal, only in reverse. The ZR-1 actually pulls a little harder than the LT1, although its torque advantage is softened somewhat by its extra weight. The real advantage, however, is that the ZR-1 has another 1500 rpm in hand at the point where the LT1 has to shift.

There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn't), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn't feel particularly faster, but it is.

A final example of this requires your imagination. Figure that we can tweak an LT1 engine so that it still makes peak torque of 340 foot pounds at 3600 rpm, but, instead of the curve dropping off to 315 pound feet at 5000, we extend the torque curve so much that it doesn't fall off to 315 pound feet until 15000 rpm. OK, so we'd need to have virtually all the moving parts made out of unobtanium :-), and some sort of turbocharging on demand that would make enough high-rpm boost to keep the curve from falling, but hey, bear with me.

If you raced a stock LT1 with this car, they would launch together, but, somewhere around the 60 foot point, the stocker would begin to fade, and would have to grab second gear shortly thereafter. Not long after that, you'd see in your mirror that the stocker has grabbed third, and not too long after that, it would get fourth, but you'd wouldn't be able to see that due to the distance between you as you crossed the line, *still in first gear*, and pulling like crazy.

I've got a computer simulation that models an LT1 Vette in a quarter mile pass, and it predicts a 13.38 second ET, at 104.5 mph. That's pretty close (actually a tiny bit conservative) to what a stock LT1 can do at 100% air density at a high traction drag strip, being powershifted. However, our modified car, while belting the driver in the back no harder than the stocker (at peak torque) does an 11.96, at 135.1 mph, all in first gear, of course. It doesn't pull any harder, but it sure as hell pulls longer :-). It's also making *900* hp, at 15,000 rpm.

Of course, folks who are knowledgeable about drag racing are now openly snickering, because they've read the preceeding paragraph, and it occurs to them that any self respecting car that can get to 135 mph in a quarter mile will just naturally be doing this in less than ten seconds. Of course that's true, but I remind these same folks that any self-respecting engine that propels a Vette into the nines is also making a whole bunch more than 340 foot pounds of torque.

That does bring up another point, though. Essentially, a more "real" Corvette running 135 mph in a quarter mile (maybe a mega big block) might be making 700-800 foot pounds of torque, and thus it would pull a whole bunch harder than my paper tiger would. It would need slicks and other modifications in order to turn that torque into forward motion, but it would also get from here to way over there a bunch quicker.

On the other hand, as long as we're making quarter mile passes with fantasy engines, if we put a 10.35:1 final-drive gear (3.45 is stock) in our fantasy LT1, with slicks and other chassis mods, we'd be in the nines just as easily as the big block would, and thus save face :-). The mechanical advantage of such a nonsensical rear gear would allow our combination to pull just as hard as the big block, plus we'd get to do all that gear banging and such that real racers do, and finish in fourth gear, as God intends. :-)

The only modification to the preceeding paragraph would be the polar moments of inertia (flywheel effect) argument brought about by such a stiff rear gear, and that argument is outside of the scope of this already massive document. Another time, maybe, if you can stand it :-).


At The Bonneville Salt Flats
Looking at top speed, horsepower wins again, in the sense that making more torque at high rpm means you can use a stiffer gear for any given car speed, and thus have more effective torque *at the drive wheels*.
Finally, operating at the power peak means you are doing the absolute best you can at any given car speed, measuring torque at the drive wheels. I know I said that acceleration follows the torque curve in any given gear, but if you factor in gearing vs car speed, the power peak is *it*. An example, yet again, of the LT1 Vette will illustrate this. If you take it up to its torque peak (3600 rpm) in a gear, it will generate some level of torque (340 foot pounds times whatever overall gearing) at the drive wheels, which is the best it will do in that gear (meaning, that's where it is pulling hardest in that gear).

However, if you re-gear the car so it is operating at the power peak (5000 rpm) *at the same car speed*, it will deliver more torque to the drive wheels, because you'll need to gear it up by nearly 39% (5000/3600), while engine torque has only dropped by a little over 7% (315/340). You'll net a 29% gain in drive wheel torque at the power peak vs the torque peak, at a given car speed.

Any other rpm (other than the power peak) at a given car speed will net you a lower torque value at the drive wheels. This would be true of any car on the planet, so, theoretical "best" top speed will always occur when a given vehicle is operating at its power peak.

"Modernizing" The 18th Century
OK. For the final-final point (Really. I Promise.), what if we ditched that water wheel, and bolted an LT1 in its place? Now, no LT1 is going to be making over 2600 foot pounds of torque (except possibly for a single, glorious instant, running on nitromethane), but, assuming we needed 12 rpm for an input to the mill, we could run the LT1 at 5000 rpm (where it's making 315 foot pounds of torque), and gear it down to a 12 rpm output. Result? We'd have over *131,000* foot pounds of torque to play with. We could probably twist the whole flour mill around the input shaft, if we needed to :-).

The Only Thing You Really Need to Know
Repeat after me. "It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you can take advantage of *gearing*." :-)

I still do not understand--will my RX8 be faster or slower coming out a stop than my mother's escort?

Originally posted by kittychester
I still do not understand--will my RX8 be faster or slower coming out a stop than my mother's escort?

Most definately will be faster unless that escort does 0-60 in under 6 seconds :)

thank goodness--based on these torque discussions I was unsure. I have a 1997 Chrysler Sebring Convertible with the large V6 engine. That has a lot of power coming from a stop. Hopefully, the RX8 will have the same.

kitty you should also read thru this thread (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=361&highlight=torque)

this thread (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=320&highlight=torque)

if you still have any questions search some of bugers posts about power. he has some great graphs:D

Kittychester, if it makes you feel better, I don't completely understand torque myself, even after having read all of the posts by buger and others about it. I have, however, picked up that in general, the more torque you've got, the faster the car is going to accelerate- but that it is so dependant on so many other factors as well (like weight, hp, etc) that unless you take EVERYTHING into consideration you're not going to get a good estimate of anything.

So, here's what I have decided:

more torque and more hp, good. Less weight, also good. And with those simple ideas, the RX-8 sounds pretty fun to drive.

put it simply

torque is what gets the car moving

horsepower is what keeps the car moving

Torque Torque Torque, everybody wants more Torque . If you want to feel that being pulled into the seat feel go to your local theme park and ride the fastet roller coaster. ;)

Listen KittyChester you want torque go get yourself a Dodge Viper now that car has Torque. I believe it has around what 500lbs/ft of Torque. But don't burn yourself on the exhaust pipes(literally). If you read a lot of the post in this forum people are getting the car for looks, practicality, price and the cars supposed awesome handling.:) You want both power(Torque) and handling you go get yourself the Chevy Corvette Z06.

I don't get it

Y&Y, she wasn't complaining of lack or torque or anything like that. She just didn't understand what it was, exactly. And with that, I don't completely understand the physics of it either. But it's not stopping me from getting the car!

:p

Well from what i understand is how much torque you can use and not how much u have....
like the honda engine in general, especially the older ones with vtech the torque is ver peaky and is very hard to use it...but in racing people just want a peak hp anyway....
i dun really know how to explain it but ... like when there is a flatter and longer torque graph is better ....

Originally posted by etang789
...the torque is ver peaky and is very hard to use it...but in racing people just want a peak hp anyway.... i dun really know how to explain it but ... like when there is a flatter and longer torque graph is better ....
I agree with etang. Torque is relative. If 2 cars both have the same 0-60 time, but one has a higher peak torque during that time, the torque makes no difference. In fact, for cornering, my opinion is the one with the lower peak torque is preferable, because it is more controllable... it won't break loose and suprise you as easily. The average torque for both cars for the 0-60 time period would be identical.

The bottom line... the RX-8 has a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds... that's plenty of torque for me.:)

the torque should be fine
________
DC MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

personally i dun need much torque...i like to rev the car...hehe
i think this car is perfect for me....since the toque and power band really starts shooting up @ 4000rpm ~ 9500rpm....
if for cornering i will try to keep at around 4000rpm in the corner...and use the 4000--> 9500rpm to exit hehe....:p

corect in a torque graph it's the area under the curve that is important!


and the other thing to consider is of course the gearing. to better understand this read this post from buger :

" Btw, the 159 ft-lb RX-8 is a relative torque monster compared to the 205 ft-lb Impala. Sure the Impala has a higher peak engine torque but looking at the wheel torque in first gear (or any gear really) tells a different story.

RX-8
engine torque ..... : 159 ft-lbs
1st gear .......... : 3.76:1
final drive ....... : 4.444:1
total gearing ..... : 3.76 * 4.444 = 16.71 (in first gear)
approx wheel torque : 2106 ft-lbs (in first gear)
approx weight ..... : 3000 lbs ?

2003 auto Impala
engine torque ..... : 205 ft-lbs
1st gear .......... : 2.92:1
final drive ....... : 2.86:1
total gearing ..... : 2.92 * 2.86 = 8.35 (in first gear)
approx wheel torque : 1182 ft-lbs (in first gear)
approx weight ..... : 3300 lbs ?

You can see that the RX-8 is geared about twice as much as the Impala in first gear (16.71 vs 8.35). The end result is that the RX-8 has almost 1000 ft-lbs more wheel torque than the Impala. If that wasn't enough, it is also quite a bit lighter.

Brian"

torque + gearing = drive wheel torque :D

I think Spoonie made a fair point and we (some of us) should in NO WAY give him a hard time for it. I personally agree that the RX-8 at low revs (2k-5k) will not feel the same as a G35C from 2k-5k. Having driven one many times I also agree the G35 is effortless at any engine speed. I am not sure how the RX-8 will feel and wait with bated breath to drive one myself.

Again personally speaking I thought the S2000s I've driven had plenty of torque at low rpm (like an Integra, which is plenty for ME) and was very impressive above 5750 rpm (VTEC), however I preferred to drive it at high rpm when I wanted a 'push in the back'. If the RX-8 is as good (should be better) at low rpm and is as good (should be better, smoother, quieter) above 6000 rpm then I will be a happy man indeed.

But Spoonie may want something different - and why shouldn't he (he may have differnt taste in food and movies too - so what). The good news is there is plenty of choice for all of us, lets celebrate the differences in cars instead asking all cars to be the same.

The other point Spoonie made is also valid - the RX-8 will not be perfect. If the 'lack of torque at low revs' is the worst problem we find in the car in the first year I will be ecstatic because it is a known 'issue' already, and most of us here have already taken it into account or disbelieved it.

ahh yes. my posts should in no way be seen as being directed at spoonie. they were in response to the folks who said they didn't understand torque.:)

Originally posted by Spoonie


I have, that's why low end torque is important to me, you don't have to downshift. The power is always there.

Try test drivng a 330i or a G35/350z. You can still feel the power in high gear @4000 plus RPM. I like effortless power.

I don't think either of them have great torque. I punched it in a 350Z (track version) to pass a car on a two lane road and it bogged down at 60MPH ( I don't remember what the RPM was), dropped it into fourth and it was pretty good. Then again, it was in sixth gear, so I didn't expect much. Another thing I didn't like is that once you get near 6K the power drops off. The 350Z, Z4 and 330 didn't impress me for the $$$, Z4 is really bad IMHO.

Originally posted by Spoonie
I have, that's why low end torque is important to me, you don't have to downshift.Where's the fun in that? If you don't want to have to shift, buy an automatic fergawdsake!

Get a CVT then....

Originally posted by eccles
Where's the fun in that? If you don't want to have to shift, buy an automatic fergawdsake!

Have you ever heard of engine flexibility? I never said that I didn't want to shift. Its good to have either option (Downshifting Optional).

Well, my car has 270lb.ft torque, and most of it available at 2500rpm. Some say that there is no replacement for displacement, and to a certain degree, it's certainly true. That being said, the Renesis is necessarily an inferior engine because it lacks torque. Mazda was never really known for making heavy high torque cars like the Supra, 3000GT or Skyline. Mazda is good at nimble, light cars with small displacement engines and excellent cornering abilities.

Spoon made a good comparison between RX-8 and S2000, which I couldn't agree more. I think the RX-8 even looks like a S2000 saloon. (front end, back end and all) So if the S2000 can be a acclaimed performance, fun to drive car, then so can the RX-8. The RX-8 is hella light, much lighter than the G35C or BMW 330ci, and this is the main weapon of the RX, not its rotary engine. IMHO, the Renesis is seriously lacking torque across the rpm range. It is to be expected from a NA 1.3L engine, even if it's a rotary. Without that torque, the 250hp will not be all that useful in everyday driving. However, I think Mazda will introduce a turbo Renesis in the near future that will address this problem. Like the S2000, the RX-8 will be a fun car to drive, partially thanks to the high revving nature of its engine. People driving Germans, American muscles and large displacement engine will look at Renesis's low torque as its weakness, but realize that the RX-8 doesn't need 250lb.ft torque to have fun. It's a light car~ and that's what Mazda is counting on.

Originally posted by pelucidor
I think Spoonie made a fair point and we (some of us) should in NO WAY give him a hard time for it.

Again personally speaking I thought the S2000s I've driven had plenty of torque at low rpm (like an Integra, which is plenty for ME) and was very impressive above 5750 rpm (VTEC), however I preferred to drive it at high rpm when I wanted a 'push in the back'...

But Spoonie may want something different - and why shouldn't he (he may have differnt taste in food and movies too - so what). The good news is there is plenty of choice for all of us, lets celebrate the differences in cars instead asking all cars to be the same.

The other point Spoonie made is also valid - the RX-8 will not be perfect. If the 'lack of torque at low revs' is the worst problem we find in the car in the first year I will be ecstatic because it is a known 'issue' already, and most of us here have already taken it into account or disbelieved it.

Pelucidor, you have spoken well regarding individual preferences: I agree with you and Spoonie about that. But Spoonie my man, I sort of object to your initial post when you say "you guys need to come to the reality that the RX8 has flaws." That is a statement that simply invites defensivene responses.

Quite frankly, I don't have to come to ANY realities about the RX8 until I DRIVE the thing myself. Maybe the car will have enough torque for me, maybe not. But if the car does meet my satisfaction with respect to torque, I would be hard pressed to have an intelligent discussion with you about that topic if you are going to insist that I must "come to the reality" that the car has that flaw. At least, I won't be very open to changing my opinion with that as an opening statement.

It seems to be little understood in today's climate of casual manners that while it might be okay for a person to be openly self-critical, if you jump in and also start telling them what they should think of themselves, their tone is likely turn from open to defensive.

If y'all wanna "celebrate the differences", then ya ought not to be quite so insistent about telling me what realities I need to come to.

So endeth the lesson. :o :D

Wonderful in-fighting about what!

End of the day the RX8 maybe slow from low revs (that is a given) but after the first couple of seconds once the revs are up (on a very easily reving engine) it will blow most cars out the way.

All one has to do is understand what the engine wants in revs, best usage of gears and the rest will be rear mirror observation.

rael.

<<The bottom line... the RX-8 has a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds... that's plenty of torque for me.>>

5.9 seconds with an 8k launch (bye bye clutch). Plenty of torque for "spirited driving fun" yes; plenty of torque for performance runs... no.

Originally posted by ToRX-8orToZ
5.9 seconds with an 8k launch (bye bye clutch). Plenty of torque for "spirited driving fun" yes; plenty of torque for performance runs... no. BYE BYE TIRES!

again.. like it has been said before..and I will say it again to everyone drive one for yourself..

until you get in one and take a "zoom-zoom" lap... this argument is just a waste of time...

I know my experience was a good one. :)

nuff said.

I'll Keep my 1994 RX-7 for the speed, HP, Torque, Looks, braking, handling and cool factor.

I'll Keep my RX-8 for the Looks, braking, handling, cool factor..Oh yea and COMFORT.

Later.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
the Renesis is necessarily an inferior engine because it lacks torque
This is just plain WRONG! When everyone here is talking about torque specs, they're talking about peak torque specs. Peak torque does not matter when your talking about over all time to speed specs or time to distance specs. Average torque does. If a 350Z ran 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, and so did an RX-8, their average torque for that time period is identical. It doesn't matter that the 350Z had a peak torque at some point during the run that was higher. It also means at some point during the run the 350Z had torque that was lower than the RX-8.

The rotary engine and the RX-8 apparently excels at having a more linear torque curve, which necessarily means it's peak torque will be lower.:D

Originally posted by javahut

This is just plain WRONG! When everyone here is talking about torque specs, they're talking about peak torque specs. Peak torque does not matter when your talking about over all time to speed specs or time to distance specs. Average torque does. If a 350Z ran 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, and so did an RX-8, their average torque for that time period is identical. It doesn't matter that the 350Z had a peak torque at some point during the run that was higher. It also means at some point during the run the 350Z had torque that was lower than the RX-8.

The rotary engine and the RX-8 apparently excels at having a more linear torque curve, which necessarily means it's peak torque will be lower.:D

You're actually incorrect. We all know the formula F=ma. So accelleration = force divided by mass. In your example if both cars ran the same time 0-60 then the forces are identical. That is incorrect because both car weight different...therefore the forces are different.

Second...torque means nothing...it's horsepower
HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

Here my example: an S2000 with 153 ft-lbs of torque can run with a Mustang GT with 302 ft-lbs. I can't find Hp torque curves for both engines but we can pretty much assume that the Mustang has more torque throughout the RPMs than the S2000. So how does the S2000 keep up? Horsepower. The true way to see which cars are faster are horsepower / weight = acceleration. Mustang = 0.080 S2000 = 0.085

It's all comes down to who can average more horsepower during their acceleration. This is why you'll see many people also quote numbers of # of pounds per horspower. Ohhh one reason the Mustang stays with the S2000 in 1/4 miles are because it's large amount of torque helps it get to redline faster in 1st thus giving it a lead 0-20 making the S2000 play catch up.

S2000 = 11.7
Mustang = 12.5
350Z Track from Edmunds= 11.2
RX-8 (weight 2900?) = 11.6

Having owned three NA rotaries (FC's) I can tell you that you will have *no* problems with "getting around town" and the "lack" of torque does not bother me one bit. You have to understand the characteristics of the engine, it revs fast, and its happy to be in high RPM, plus even while you're normally driving, you'll still be keeping the car over 3k, unless you want to lug the engine/tranny.

Of course this may not apply to the 8, but fyi.

car and driver will get a slap in the face when the 4th generation RX7 comes out:D lets see wat theyll say now

Power consists of torque and speed.

Quoting peak torque figures is as meaningless as saying something like my engine has 18000 rpms (Formula 1), 8900 rpms (Honda S2000), 6500 (Corvette Z06) Big ass two stroke diesel locomotive engine 1000 rps
Even the loser F1 teams have 825 hp @ 18000 revs, =241 ft-lbs there

So 159 ft-lbs @ 5500 = 166.5 hp
& 214 ft-lbs @ 3500 = 142.6 hp

(Torque * rev/second [rpms / 60] * 2 pi (radians)) / 550 ft-lbs second = horsepower
No your car doesn't accelerate "hardest" at maximum torque

You get power either by more quality or quantity
Quality= higher compression ratio
Quantity=More speed (rpms), more width (bigger engine)

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

In your example if both cars ran the same time 0-60 then the forces are identical. That is incorrect because both car weight different...therefore the forces are different.

I agree with you. I'm just saying, hypothetically, if both cars weighed the same and had an identical time to speed, the peak torque makes no difference. It's the average relative torque or horsepower to weight ratio over the time period or distance, not the peak torque (which is what some are questioning), that makes one car reach it's speed or distance a little quicker than another. We all know the RX-8 weighs a little less than the 350, so therefore requires a little less of either torque or horsepower to push it to the same speed or distance in a given amount of time as the 350.

Also, these statements are a little contradictory...

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

Second...torque means nothing...it's horsepower.

...one reason the Mustang stays with the S2000 in 1/4 miles are because it's large amount of torque...

Originally posted by javahut


Also, these statements are a little contradictory...



[/QUOTE]

I was wondering if someone would catch that. If you look at the formula: HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

The having more torque means you reach higher horsepower in the lower RPMs. For the Mustang this means that it has an advantage of a greater power to weight ratio low in the RPMs. This is what hurts the S2000 at the start. It needs to get those revs really high to match the power to weight ratio the Mustang starts with. If the S2000 is driven perfect, hitting VTEC just right in 1st so you don't smoke the tires or bog the engine, then you'll kill the Mustang. But my experience with VTEC those starts are few and far between. Thus you play catch up.

Elara:more torque and more hp, good. Less weight, also good. And with those simple ideas, the RX-8 sounds pretty fun to drive. That's a commercial! Call Mazda and have the residuals sent to RX-8Forum.com!

rael:All one has to do is understand what the engine wants in revs, best usage of gears and the rest will be rear mirror observation. Another One! More residuals!

Ok, so the RX-8 will be low on torque. The main reason I'm interested in the RX-8 is the (reported) driving FUN, and balance of attributes. Yes, more torque would make the car easier to drive quickly, but I didn't decide on this car based on how it compares to other cars similar in utility, (4-seat, sporty, good performance and handling...hell, we know the RX-8 kinda created its own catagory) as far as acceleration is concerned.

The performance wars rage on, and as soon as one manufacturer comes up with a more powerful, quicker accelerating car, another manufacturer counters with a slightly more powerful, or slightly quicker car. I just want a unique car that can hold its own among other cars with good performance. I don't think the RX-8 will give you the "kick" like the FD, or the Mustang GT for example, but Car and Driver must have had some good reasons why they liked the RX-8 best out of the three cars in their comparison. (and I hope bribery wasn't one of them!) I'm pretty sure the car will out-accelerate the N.A. FC, and the FC I owned (worn out as mine was) was a fun car to drive!

I'm hoping anyway, the test drive will tell me a lot about how well I'll like the car. If I enjoy driving it, we have a winner, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by javahut

This is just plain WRONG! When everyone here is talking about torque specs, they're talking about peak torque specs. Peak torque does not matter when your talking about over all time to speed specs or time to distance specs. Average torque does. If a 350Z ran 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, and so did an RX-8, their average torque for that time period is identical. It doesn't matter that the 350Z had a peak torque at some point during the run that was higher. It also means at some point during the run the 350Z had torque that was lower than the RX-8.

The rotary engine and the RX-8 apparently excels at having a more linear torque curve, which necessarily means it's peak torque will be lower.:D

Dammit, that came out completely wrong.... I meant to say the RX-8 is NOT necessarily an inferior car because of the low torque, because the car is much lighter and doesn't require as much power to push it around. Sorry about that.

precisely...
________
Large tits live (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/big-tits/)

Don't forget aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and gearing! Much more to acceleration than engine power :)