Mazda website's "Features and Specs" section is finally showing the official curb weight:

========================================
Curb Weight lb. (minimum w\ popular options) = 3029 lbs
========================================

I think "minimum w\ popular options' includes everything in the GT package...and I think 3029 lbs is not bad for that...what do you think? There were many other "TBD" values before which are showing proper numbers now.

Cheers,
Maximus.

At 3029 lbs with popular options I am very happy, I have ordered a fully loaded GT with moonroof and NAV so I knew mine would not be less than 3,000 lbs. How many other cars loaded similarly will weigh less than the RX-8?

Seriously, WTF does "popular options" mean? If that's the loaded GT model, that's good, if that's the base model, then that's bad. I think we need to email our Mazda reps about this one.

Here are some other particulars for the manual tranny version that have been placed on the MazdaUSA.com site:

Recommended Fuel: Unleaded 95 RON
Oil Capacity: 7.1 Quarts
EPA Mileage: 20.4 mpg City / 30.2 mpg Highway

Originally posted by rxeightr
EPA Mileage: 20.4 mpg City / 30.2 mpg Highway Hot damn! :D

Of course, with my lead foot, I'll never see those numbers.

Originally posted by ZoomZoom
At 3029 lbs with popular options I am very happy, I have ordered a fully loaded GT with moonroof and NAV so I knew mine would not be less than 3,000 lbs. How many other cars loaded similarly will weigh less than the RX-8?

Edmunds lists:
Mitsu EVO at 3087 lbs.
Subaru WRX at 3085 lbs.

And both of those cars come with all wheel drive. I'm a little disappointed :( I was really hoping that it would go on a diet before reaching the shores and show up at 2800-2900.

Now THAT's the fuel efficiency we were looking for!

I was having a hard time to believe 20mpg on highway, with premium fuel almost $1 a litre here in Canada that would have been INSANE! At 30mpg that's much better.

Originally posted by m477
Seriously, WTF does "popular options" mean? If that's the loaded GT model, that's good, if that's the base model, then that's bad. I think we need to email our Mazda reps about this one.

I agree. It's worded very curiously. My bet is that it is NOT the Grand Touring package, or they would have been proud to say "3029 fully optioned". This is disappointing.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


Edmunds lists:
Mitsu EVO at 3087 lbs.
Subaru WRX at 3085 lbs.

And both of those cars come with all wheel drive. I'm a little disappointed :( I was really hoping that it would go on a diet before reaching the shores and show up at 2800-2900.

do either of those cars offer the level of interior finish, interior noise suppression, and other general amentities the RX-8 does?? i'd certainly be surprised if this was the case.
the RX-8 has to be about a lot more than speed, and even handling. it really does need to appeal to a wider audience than that, although yeah, portliness isn't usually a good thing.

but a "GTUs" type of trim (base model with high-power motor and 6spd) would probably weigh less than 3000lbs.

The WRX actually has a pretty decent ride quality....in fact its too soft for my taste!

Is anyone seriously complaining about 29 lbs in a 3000 lb car? That's 1 percent! Heck, more than a third of all Americans are overweight by more than that amount.

In the April 2003 Automobile magazine mentioned the the RX-8 weight 3020 pounds with a full tank of gas. Check it out here:

http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2987

Also if you look closely at the site it says that the "Production Timing" is March 14, 2003.............. THEIR FINALLY MAKING OUR RX-8'S!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Gamera
Is anyone seriously complaining about 29 lbs in a 3000 lb car? That's 1 percent! Heck, more than a third of all Americans are overweight by more than that amount.

Yeah, that's an extra 29lbs I'm going to have to lose.

Thanks alot Mazda!

-Mr. Wigggles

BTW, Mazda Canada is claiming 1394 4AT/1384 6MT which is 3050lb or thereabouts. Full specs here:

http://www.mazda.ca/eng/down_the_road/rx8_2002/2004_RX-8_Specs.pdf

note: we in Canada can't not get a whole lot of things, there are only two models, and on the upper model only two options: the sunroof, and the NAV...

Originally posted by IGOZMZM
Also if you look closely at the site it says that the "Production Timing" is March 14, 2003.............. THEIR FINALLY MAKING OUR RX-8'S!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you think the "April" dealers may be right and those in "the know" may not be?

Originally posted by brownchiro


Do you think the "April" dealers may be right and those in "the know" may not be?

No, Mazda needs to make enough vehicles to fill at least one shipment first and do whatever else there is to do to them before shipment now. Then we're waiting for them to get shipped accross the ocean. Then wait and get inspected at the port. Also my guess would be that MNAO would add or check stuff there too. Then we have to wait for the rail (train) to take them to the local area. Then get loaded on a semi to be delivered to the dealership. Late may if we're lucky..... June would still sound right. Also depends on how far up the list you/me/we are in the production line. I think the dealers are confusing the "build dates" with delivery dates.

Originally posted by IGOZMZM


I think the dealers are confusing the "build dates" with delivery dates.

i think you got it on the nose. i went to my dealer today and he printed his orders of the website for me to see and mine says delivery june week 1. there are no delivery dates in april.

It list the fuel requirements as

Recommended Fuel: Unleaded 95 RON

That's a Euro spec right? RON, that's the R part of R+M/2 right?
What't the equivalent US Octane? 91? 92? 93!!??

7L of oil! :eek: That ain't gonna be cheap to change IF synthetic oil is approved.. but on the plus side the more oil you have the longer it can last.

Holy $$$hit 30MPG highway

Originally posted by Gamera
Is anyone seriously complaining about 29 lbs in a 3000 lb car? That's 1 percent! Heck, more than a third of all Americans are overweight by more than that amount.

I wasn't complaining about 29 pounds. I was complaining about an all-wheel drive car that weighs 29 pounds more, has 4 doors and is about the same size. I'll agree that the Mazda interior is very nice and the RX-8 looks way better but still...an AWD system has got to be heavy plus the engine in the WRX is heavier than the RENESIS. Where did the RX-8 pick up the weight?

If the RX-8's drivetrain is lighter and the engine is lighter then all the weight is in the frame and interior. It seems funny that the interior would add that much weight to a car.

I think safety features have something to do with that.. lots of reinforcements in the car.

Oh yea... the WRX has cloth recaro seats.. very lightweight.

if you start looking at the option list I'm sure you can add up a bunch of pounds.. the bose stereo amp weighs some... etc....

Either way it's two different (albeit fun) cars for two different types of people.

I prefer the RX-8 because it's RWD, and has a nice intrior/amenities... the WRX is AWD (which can be fun but in my case not), and less livable interior.

Just a matter of preference... weight is probably in the interior features as you mentioned though.

Didn't Car And Driver list the RX-8 as weighing 2900+ ? I remember it being just a bit under 3,000lb. It had cloth seats and was probably missing a lot of the options you can add on. And remember, most car magazines take cars to local weigh stations to get an accurate weight, because most manufacturers fib a bit when listing curb weights.

Personally, I don't want all those options. I just want the 6-speed, 250hp, sport suspension and the big breaks and wheels. I'm VERY happy about the 30mpg highway figures, as are all of you.

I wasn't directing that comment toward anyone in particular, and the comments about the EVO/STi are interesting to note. I think the fact that all these cars have pretty much the same weight shows the difficulty in shaving weight without dramatically changing construction methods (aluminum body/chassis, composites, etc, or like in the RX, an entirely different type of engine).

I am sure if an Mazda quoted the weight of a base build at 2990 lbs., there would be no one complaining. But a 3000 lb ceiling is a totally arbitrary figure. I would hate to think the engineers worked expressly to reach that weight, especially since for the rest of the world, 1363 kgs is not a magic number marketing can toss around and boast about.

I was just pointing out that these comparatively small differences in weight and front/rear loads (another neverending discussing) don't make any real world difference. There are plenty of other factors that will more greatly contribute to the overall performance of the vehicle. And even then, the bottom line is single most important factor when generating performance scores will be the person behind the wheel. And even then, the guy's skills are going to matter more than his cheeseburger and fries quotient.

I do think interior materials/insulation do weigh more than most would expect. There's about a 200 lb difference between the G35C and the 350Z, and I don't think it's all in that rear bench and extra wheelbase length.

Given current reviews, I think Mazda engineers have done a bang up job at balancing weight versus interior build quality, seat comfort, and noise level at highway speeds.

Originally posted by Quick_lude
7L of oil! :eek: That ain't gonna be cheap to change IF synthetic oil is approved.. but on the plus side the more oil you have the longer it can last.

7 QUARTS of oil......

for comparison, my 91 NA holds 6 qts of oil (though only 5 qts are replaced every oil change, 1qt remains in the engine somewhere...)

Looks like the weight of the RX8 is pretty much on projection. Mazda wanted a sub-3000lb and 3029 is very close to what they had in mind. I guess everyone kind of expected lighweight from Mazda, but Lancer Evolution 8 and Subaru Sti came in much lighter than I thought. Those two WRC rally cars are going to be monsters on the street, with close to 280hp and RX-8 weight.

On the other hand, the WRX and Evo8 probably has much heavier engine and AWD system than the RX-8, you'd think they would be at least 100lbs heavier than the RX8. (Doesn't the RX8 use extensive aluminum body parts, too?)

Anyhow, the RX-8 looks better than either of those two performance 4 door monsters. Now the true test for the 8 is the 'fun to drive' factor compared to the WRX and Evolution VIII. Come one, auto magazines, give us a RX-8, Evolution 8, WRX Sti comparison. :D

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
...Now the true test for the 8 is the 'fun to drive' factor compared to the WRX and Evolution VIII. Come one, auto magazines, give us a RX-8, Evolution 8, WRX Sti comparison. :D
Don't know what kind of comparison that would be... That's why the G35 was never compared to the WRX, or 330 to the WRX. Would be hard to put into a comparison I think. Pretty different cars.

But I'd read it either way.

Same price range, same advertisement slogan 'sport cars!', all three have 4 doors, seats 4 people, all of them are from Japan, and all of them are brand spanking new Japanese import cars. I can't think of a better comparison~

The comparison between the 350Z, RX8 and 330ci was strange. One 2 seater, one luxury sport coupe, and the RX8. The C&D comparison didn't make any sense either, a American super muscle car, a luxury sport coupe, and the RX8. Again, mismatch. It's hard to match up the RX8 to other cars because it's a cross over - between a 4 door sport sedan and 2 door coupe. That doesn't mean we should start comparing luxury cars, muscle cars and lightweight rotary cars in the same category though.

I'd think the WRX vs Evolution 8 vs RX8 would be more interesting and more worthwhile. Heck, the RX8 might just be the most luxurious one out of the three. A RSX-S, RX8 and Dodge Neon SRT4 would probably provide an entertaining read as well.

For reference only, most Japanese Magazines compare the RX-8 to the 350Z and the S2000. The RX8 has the 4 seats, the 350Z has monster torque, and the S2000 has the lightweight quick handling characteristics. A S2000, 350Z and RX8 comparison would probably make sense, too. We'll probably see those comparisons once the car is actually released.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
i'd think the WRX vs Evolution 8 vs RX8 would be more interesting and more worthwhile. Heck, the RX8 might just be the most luxurious one out of the three. A RSX-S, RX8 and Dodge Neon SRT4 would probably provide an entertaining read as well.

For reference only, most Japanese Magazines compare the RX-8 to the 350Z and the S2000. The RX8 has the 4 seats, the 350Z has monster torque, and the S2000 has the lightweight quick handling characteristics. A S2000, 350Z and RX8 comparison would probably make sense, too. We'll probably see those comparisons once the car is actually released.

i think the RX-8 is more luxurious than you're thinking... although i know very little about the Evo and STi, given that they're speed-only machines based on econo-box compacts, i'd really count on the RX-8 being a nicer daily car than either of those. IMO, the comparisons with the G35C, BMW 3, and S2000 are very warranted, far moreso than the AWD monster 4bangers.

btw, as nice as the S2000 is, i think the 8 has got its number in nearly every performance metric, even down to the practical every-day ones ;)

ah HA!! and yet another sees my very early comparison of the RX-8 (base model, high power motor) to similarly prices RSX Type-Ses and Celica GTSes, which the RX-8 will have for appies. :D

What about the suicide doors and the extra bracing required for the lack of the B pillar? I would think that would be a bigger weight adder than a few goodies in the interior?

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Come one, auto magazines, give us a RX-8, Evolution 8, WRX Sti comparison. :D

I think that this would be a great comparison. I agree all of the other comparisons so far have been a little strange (Mustang Cobra?) The RX-8 will beat them hands down for interior and exterior looks(unless you like the boy racer look) but what about fun to drive? how about a new catagory...fun to drive when seating 4?

Originally posted by Quick_lude
7L of oil!Originally posted by ZoomZoomH
7 QUARTS of oil......Where are you guys getting those numbers? According to the Specification Deck (rev 1/30/03), it's 6.3 quarts, which is a shade under 6 liters.

The STi amd Evolution weights mentioned earlier are not accurate. Edmunds is full of crap.

I checked the official Mitsu spec sheet at www.evolutionm.net, and it lists the curb weight of the Evolution (with sunroof) as 3298 pounds. No sunroof = 3263 pounds. So, there is a ~250 pound weight advantage for the RX-8.

As for the Sti, neither the weight nor the price have been announced by Subaru.

Originally posted by nostatic
The STi amd Evolution weights mentioned earlier are not accurate. Edmunds is full of crap.

I checked the official Mitsu spec sheet at www.evolutionm.net, and it lists the curb weight of the Evolution (with sunroof) as 3298 pounds. No sunroof = 3263 pounds. So, there is a ~250 pound weight advantage for the RX-8.

As for the Sti, neither the weight nor the price have been announced by Subaru.

You beat me to it nostatic!..... :)

The mileage does sound right where it should be though! Definitely happy with that!

Originally posted by eccles
Where are you guys getting those numbers? According to the Specification Deck (rev 1/30/03), it's 6.3 quarts, which is a shade under 6 liters.

According to Mazda Canada's February 17, 2003 "2004 RX-8" announcements on page 4; "Engine Oil Capacity 4 Speed Automatic Transmission = 6.0 liters & 6 Speed Manual Transmission = 6.7 liters".

Originally posted by ZoomZoom


According to Mazda Canada's February 17, 2003 "2004 RX-8" announcements on page 4; "Engine Oil Capacity 4 Speed Automatic Transmission = 6.0 liters & 6 Speed Manual Transmission = 6.7 liters".

And in the USA, since we yanks refuse to change, it is: 4-Speed Auto = 6.3 Quarts, and the 6-Speed Manual = 7.1 Quarts :D

FWIW - those "strange" comparisons are really very calculated.

Consider that the market that the 8 is aming at is the "sports" sector, where you have big dogs with every marque throwing cars of every type at the consumer. The RX-8 being a "crossover" as it is, the comparos make more sense... because the placement of the RX-8 in each of these test still puts it first nearly all of the time...... not quite as fast, yet a lil more comfy than a 2 seater, or a brutish pony-car. Not quite as comfortable or as plush as the luxo-marques, but with more road-capability ...yadda yadda... the list goes on..

While the comparisons are not real true-to-life comparions of apples to apples "sports cars", they are essentially choices at a buffet, with several tasty main courses avalible. Make mine a hot RX-8, hold the rice!

:D

Originally posted by DrKillJoY
Make mine a hot RX-8, hold the rice!

:D

I second that!

:D

Originally posted by rxeightr
Here are some other particulars for the manual tranny version that have been placed on the MazdaUSA.com site:

Recommended Fuel: Unleaded 95 RON
Oil Capacity: 7.1 Quarts
EPA Mileage: 20.4 mpg City / 30.2 mpg Highway

Holy Crap, 95 Octane (I have to assume it's Octaine since the other two figures are Quarts not Litres and MPG not KPL)? Here in San Diego they only have 87/89/91! Is there a fuel additive I can buy to increase the octane, or will I be driving with increased likelyhood of knocks, etc?

Originally posted by DisneyDestroyer
Holy Crap, 95 Octane (I have to assume it's Octaine since the other two figures are Quarts not Litres and MPG not KPL)? Here in San Diego they only have 87/89/91!95 RON (Research Octane Number) is 91 PON (Pump Octane Number). See http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMONPON.html for a good explanation and comparison table.

Thanks for the clarification.:)

Originally posted by ZoomZoomH


7 QUARTS of oil......

for comparison, my 91 NA holds 6 qts of oil (though only 5 qts are replaced every oil change, 1qt remains in the engine somewhere...)
When will you Yanks learn.. :p Metric is where it's at! :D

Interesting about the 1L remaining in the engine.. Is this true for every rotary engine? Kinda odd if true to keep that dirty oil in there..
:confused:

So I take it most of you guys are pissed about the weight?

So I take it most of you guys are pissed about the weight?

I, for one, am not pissed at all. Actually I am impressed with the weight savings they were able to accomplish by the use of aluminum hood & back doors, and rotor redesign.

I think the engineers did a great job, considering how feature-rich the RX-8 is.

I think some people where disappointed, but these people were also hopeing for 2700-2800 lb. Personally, I'm satisfied with the weight. Now if mazda made it 3500 lb then I really would be pissed :p

Originally posted by chenpin
I think some people where disappointed, but these people were also hopeing for 2700-2800 lb. Personally, I'm satisfied with the weight. Now if mazda made it 3500 lb then I really would be pissed :p

Well, it's going to be close to 3500 with 4 adults sitting in it. But that's removable weight. :)

Originally posted by MaRX8


Well, it's going to be close to 3500 with 4 adults sitting in it. But that's removable weight. :)

Maybe four Ethiopians. With four Americans we are looking at 3,900 lbs, with 800 lbs of it being cholesterol.

Originally posted by babylou


Maybe four Ethiopians. With four Americans we are looking at 3,900 lbs, with 800 lbs of it being cholesterol.

HAHHAHA........so true :D...the car is gonna be a absolute pig with 4 people in the car!

Originally posted by rx7 rage


HAHHAHA........so true :D...the car is gonna be a absolute pig with 4 people in the car!

So with 4 people in the 8 and the air conditioning on and some in town spirited driving....... maybe we'll be getting about 5 - 10 mpg :( :D

damn I hope not....

I was under the impression that curb weight was given as a fully loaded car. As in, there are 4 185 pound people in that weight.

Originally posted by daedelgt
I was under the impression that curb weight was given as a fully loaded car. As in, there are 4 185 pound people in that weight.

hell no.......curb weight is with no passengers........there goes your zoom zoom :D

... oh well :)

I've never seen anyone autocross or race in any fashion with 4 people with them. If you have four people, any car is a pig.

I posted this (www.rx-8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3387)in the tech section and can't figure out how to link to it...well maybe I did figure it out, but just in case:

The following info comes from CarTest2000, an interesting program available at cartest2000.com that calculates and predicts car performance. I plugged in the info that I could find & from MazdaUSA.com and ran the performance tests for the MT, then reconfigured the info for an AT test, as well as a fully loaded (4 occupants)MT, with 540 lbs of family and friends (the weight of your family and friends may vary). In my configurations I feel confident, even proud of my AT torque curve, but not so fond of my MT curve; I just got tired of tweaking it. All speed measures are mph. I also included a 310hp MazdaSpeed version. The performance of the loaded MT isn't as bad as I thought it would be. As these are software projections they should be considered theoretical rather than factual.

Test.....RX8-MT.....RX8-AT.....RX8-w/4.....MSP-RX8
0-30.....2.14.........2.45.........2.45...........1. 73 sec
0-40.....2.91.........3.49.........3.34...........2. 35 sec
0-60.....6.11.........7.42.........6.78...........4. 89 sec
0-70.....7.35.........9.56.........8.41...........5. 99 sec
0-100..14.44........20.41.......16.65.........11.63 sec

¼ mile..14.4.........15.5..........15.1..........13. 4 sec
.......@100mph....@90mph...@96mph.......@105mph

Top
Speed...156mph...134mph.....155mph......167mph

Fuel Economy
City......20.4mpg....28.2mpg.....19.3mpg....18.5mp g
Hiway...28.6mpg....36.4mpg!....28.6mpg....27.1mpg

Originally posted by ggreen29
I posted this (www.rx-8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3387)in the tech section and can't figure out how to link to it...well maybe I did figure it out, but just in case:

The following info comes from CarTest2000, an interesting program available at cartest2000.com that calculates and predicts car performance. I plugged in the info that I could find & from MazdaUSA.com and ran the performance tests for the MT, then reconfigured the info for an AT test, as well as a fully loaded (4 occupants)MT, with 540 lbs of family and friends (the weight of your family and friends may vary). In my configurations I feel confident, even proud of my AT torque curve, but not so fond of my MT curve; I just got tired of tweaking it. All speed measures are mph. I also included a 310hp MazdaSpeed version. The performance of the loaded MT isn't as bad as I thought it would be. As these are software projections they should be considered theoretical rather than factual.

Test.....RX8-MT.....RX8-AT.....RX8-w/4.....MSP-RX8
0-30.....2.14.........2.45.........2.45...........1. 73 sec
0-40.....2.91.........3.49.........3.34...........2. 35 sec
0-60.....6.11.........7.42.........6.78...........4. 89 sec
0-70.....7.35.........9.56.........8.41...........5. 99 sec
0-100..14.44........20.41.......16.65.........11.63 sec

¼ mile..14.4.........15.5..........15.1..........13. 4 sec
.......@100mph....@90mph...@96mph.......@105mph

Top
Speed...156mph...134mph.....155mph......167mph

Fuel Economy
City......20.4mpg....28.2mpg.....19.3mpg....18.5mp g
Hiway...28.6mpg....36.4mpg!....28.6mpg....27.1mpg

I like those numbers... the only one that is troubling is the amount of time from 70-100. Double the ammount of time? That doesn't seem right.... Well, maybe it is because at that point you somewhere in the end/begining of 3rd/4th gear. Hm... Nice work.

Very interesting. Very honest. [(the weight of your family and friends may vary)]! One question: Did you include a driver as part of the 5MT base calculation? If so, how much did said driver weigh without that varying family/friends? If you didn't include a driver, could you sell me one of those remote controls? ;-)

Did you include a driver as part of the 5MT base calculation? Yes, IIRC the program has a default value of 180lb that is included in the performance calculations. It also includes fuel weight.

If you have four people, any car is a pig.

I hate to bring up the "T" word, but in a car with sufficient T, the extra weight will not make as much difference. When my G35 has four people in it, it is not as fast, but it still feels quite fast and responsive, sufficiently fast to scare the passengers pretty good! With the RX-8's paucity of T, the effects of extra weight will be much more pronounced and it will be harder to scare the passengers.

I was just thinking about the extra passengers today, and what the extra weight will do to the feel of the car. It will be interesting to see how the RX-8 handles Pittsburgh's hills with three extra people aboard.

At any rate, think of the rear seats as a bonus. I suspect most RX-8 buyers will not be buying the car to replace an Accord or a Civic, but has enough extra practicality to make the purchase easier to justify.

Actually, I find the total concept with the neat rear doors, stylish and spacious rear seat, rotary power, and knockout interior imeensely cool! I really think the car will be as much of a hit, if not more so, than the Audi TT was for its concept and style.

My Z4 salesman called and I told him I would not be getting the Z4 but an RX-8 instead, and he seemed taken aback and sighed... then he said, "nice car". You could hear a measure of respect in his voice, like he thought highly of the RX-8 and considered it a worthy competitor.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata

My Z4 salesman called and I told him I would not be getting the Z4 but an RX-8 instead, and he seemed taken aback and sighed... then he said, "nice car". You could hear a measure of respect in his voice, like he thought highly of the RX-8 and considered it a worthy competitor.

almost brings a tear to the eye :)

i like those z4's...bit pricy for me tho

the only one that is troubling is the amount of time from 70-100. Double the ammount of time? That doesn't seem right This is consistent with similar and tested vehicles.

CARTEST 2000 (software simulation)
.........2003.......2003.......2001
.........Mustang..350Z.....BMW M3...RX-8
.........SVT
0-60.....5.27.....5.54.....5.14.....5.95 sec
0-70.....6.4......7.67.....7.16.....7.35 sec
0-80.....8.35.....9.31.....8.75.....9.86 sec
0-90.....9.98....11.28...10.52....11.93 sec
0-100...11.8....14.33...12.6......14.44 sec

Actual Car tests

.........Car & Driver..................Road&Track
.........Mustang..G35.....RX-8....RX-8
.........SVT........Coupe
0-60......4.6.......5.5......5.9.....5.9 sec
0-100...10.6.....14.2....15.8....15.9 sec
0-130...18.4.....26.8....33.5

Automobile Magazine
...........RX-8....330i....350Z
0-60.....6.2.....6.5.....5.6 sec
0-100..16.7...17.4....14.4 sec

My Z4 salesman called and I told him I would not be getting the Z4 but an RX-8 instead, and he seemed taken aback and sighed... then he said, "nice car". Sounds like you're BMW salesman knew more about the RX-8 than some Mazda salesmen.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata

My Z4 salesman called and I told him I would not be getting the Z4 but an RX-8 instead, and he seemed taken aback and sighed... then he said, "nice car". You could hear a measure of respect in his voice, like he thought highly of the RX-8 and considered it a worthy competitor.
When did you change your mind? I thought that you were really set on the Z4. Also, it seems like you wouldn't need a "practical" sportscar if you already have a G35 sedan...

1384kg for a 6MT? Oh it is very fat... my DC2 is only 1080kg

:confused:

Originally posted by JTek_55


I like those numbers... the only one that is troubling is the amount of time from 70-100. Double the ammount of time? That doesn't seem right.... Well, maybe it is because at that point you somewhere in the end/begining of 3rd/4th gear. Hm... Nice work.

That is where aerodynamics really start causing most of the force you are overcoming. It is a squared relationship to the velocity with the drag overcoming rolling friction and whatnot after around 45 mph, but it really starts showing up in the above 70 side of things.

Originally posted by JTek_55


I like those numbers... the only one that is troubling is the amount of time from 70-100. Double the ammount of time? That doesn't seem right.... Well, maybe it is because at that point you somewhere in the end/begining of 3rd/4th gear. Hm... Nice work.

ya know i was thinking... i think i remembered reading somewhere that they did that test in 6th gear, which is your over drive gear... hell 5th gear has a higher top speed than 6th. 6th is just a gas saving gear. if the 8 had a regular 5 spd w/o the 6th gear i think it would fare a lot better. or, i could just be on crack or something and they did it in 5th gear, at any rate, it's just a number on a page =)

Originally posted by lefuton
6th is just a gas saving gear.

It is? How so? I cruise on the interstate at about 80mph, at which I'm doing ~3200rpms in my 86 GXL. The Rx-8 will be turning at ~4000rpms to do 80mph. Why is the "overdrive" gear shorter than the one on a car with one less gear? Imagine if they had lengthened sixth gear so that the rx-8 will do 3200rpms at 80 mph instead of 4000. That's 20% less fuel used. What's the EPA estimate for highway? 24? So with a lengthened sixth, the EPA should be around 28?

My girlfriend's 1991 Volkswagen Cabriolet does 80mph at 4000, with only THREE gears.

I know that I've brought this up in a few other threads, but I really think they screwed the pooch on this one. The '8 is still at the top of my list for new cars next year, since fuel economy isn't my main factor, but as someone mentioned before, you can't even hit top speed in sixth gear anyway. It really should've been a true overdrive.

[but I really think they screwed the pooch on this one. The '8 is still at the top of my list for new cars next year, since fuel economy isn't my main factor, but as someone mentioned before, you can't even hit top speed in sixth gear anyway. It really should've been a true overdrive.]
IMHO: any car that can't reach the speed in the top gear of the previous gear (in 6th can't reach the top speed of 5th, or in 5th of 4th,etc) has a 'overdrive' gear. I can tell you've never owned a rotary engined car, probably never driven one, and if so not for a very long time. A rotary is just humming along, almost literally, below 6K - especially at 4000. And if I were to say I 'normall cruise' at 100MPH, that doesn't mean the manufacturer should have designed my car to do that at 2500RPM, if you get my drift.
The 70-100 timing done in top gear if not how I'd typically try to get from 70-100 - I'd drop a gear, or two. I think most of us here would / will. Maybe often. If anyone is a newbie to the rotary world and can't get past the higher revs of the engine compared to what they are used to (which is often a V8)- they should probably stay away from the RX-8. I'd almost suggest putting paper over the tach[or otherwise ignoring it) and just listening for the buzzer indicating the time to shift is nearing. If you shift anywhere from 8000 to 10,000 you'll be in good shape. If you only pay attention to the speed in most circumstances you'll never know that it's doing 4K or 7K or 9K. (unless you listen to the exhaust sound)

Originally posted by bdclary
Why is the "overdrive" gear shorter than the one on a car with one less gear? Imagine if they had lengthened sixth gear so that the rx-8 will do 3200rpms at 80 mph instead of 4000. That's 20% less fuel used.

heh heh heh... uh, no not exactly. throttle angle, and the amount of force (at the wheels) an engine can generate per revolution at a given speed all come into play here: throttle angle, revs, velocity... it's not that simple a picture, otherwise they'd just gear 6th to do 100mph per 1000rpm, or more... there are always comprimizes to be made.

btw, how could you call a 0.768 gear not a "true" overdrive?? it's just the final drive ratio of 4.444 that is a little short, but that's what helps it get to 60 in 6 seconds.

if u guys car about it so much then get a diet plan so ur car could run faster;)

Originally posted by rx8daniel
I can tell you've never owned a rotary engined car, probably never driven one, and if so not for a very long time. A rotary is just humming along, almost literally, below 6K - especially at 4000. And if I were to say I 'normall cruise' at 100MPH, that doesn't mean the manufacturer should have designed my car to do that at 2500RPM, if you get my drift.


Sorry, I should've specified in my earlier post. I drive an 86 Rx-7 GXL with 192,000 miles. I'm perfectly aware that rotaries have no problems revving high, and that's why I'd have no objection to downshifting if I need to accelerate.

Yes, you are right that mazda doesn't (and shouldn't) design the gearing for my personal cruise speed, but I was using it as an example. I probably should've used the common interstate speed limit of 70 mph. In either case, my car with one less gear is using 20% less rpms to cruise at the same speed. I don't think that's right.

Originally posted by wakeech
heh heh heh... uh, no not exactly. throttle angle, and the amount of force (at the wheels) an engine can generate per revolution at a given speed all come into play here: throttle angle, revs, velocity... it's not that simple a picture, otherwise they'd just gear 6th to do 100mph per 1000rpm, or more... there are always comprimizes to be made.
btw, how could you call a 0.768 gear not a "true" overdrive?? it's just the final drive ratio of 4.444 that is a little short, but that's what helps it get to 60 in 6 seconds.

You're probably right; 20% less rpms may not exactly correspond to a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, but there still would be an improvement.

It may or may not be a "true overdrive" gear I guess, but I don't understand how a car with 100 more hp (247 vs 146), 20 more ft-lb of torque (159 vs 138), and one more gear than my car needs more rpms to cruise. Nor do I understand how sixth gear has anything to do with 0-60 times.

The only thing that I can think of is that there's not enough torque down low to reasonably cruise (without lugging) 4 adults at 70mph, since the total weight would be around 3600 lbs.

The top gear isn't used to get to 60mph... I believe it was done by 3rd gear.

I should have noticed the 86 GXL part of your post. That's interesting. I'm pretty sure my 84s would hit close to 1/2 the speed (*100) in 5th - say 4100 at 80. So it didn't surprise me to see RX-8 numbers. It may be the possible extra weight though at 80 I think w/ 4 people it could still cruise at 3200 rpm. It may just be the amount of fuel being given at 80 in the RX-8 will more or less be the same or a little less then required to push your 86 at 3200RPM. What is the final drive ratio on the GXL?

Originally posted by rx8daniel
What is the final drive ratio on the GXL?

4.10:1 I believe... I'll have to check when I get home.