RX8 demands.

1. Auto climate control (it may sound weird to have it in this car, but this is a good feature to compete against its rivals)

2. Improve fuel economy

3. Blue interior accents

4) chkconfig increase_torque on

:)

ahahaha... that sure sounds easy enough (the fuel economy AND torque at the same time), doesn't it??

if you can think of something, i'm sure that Mazda'd buy it off of you for a hefty sum. :) good luck... :p

the auto climate control... do we have a consensus one way or the other on that at all yet??? and blue interior...?? well, each to their own... i guess... :S

Originally posted by wakeech

the auto climate control... do we have a consensus one way or the other on that at all yet???

no. and it's damn irritating if you ask me:mad:

and i was thinking about ripping out the a/c to trim some weight too heh

Originally posted by alex
4) chkconfig increase_torque on


5) rpm -i supercharger.rpm
... or ...
5) rpm -i turbochargerT80.rpm

:D

LOL. nix heads... :D

The RX8 is a true sports "sedan". So it should have some luxury features. Climate could be an Option.

As for the 159lb or 164lb torque, it's a concern how "slow" the RX8 would be when seated 4 "weighty" adults.

Just wondering:

How many members here think of the RX-8 as a compact 'true sport sedan' like a BMW 3-series?

I still think the RX-8 is a 2+2 coupe with entry assist-suicide doors for rear passengers. I think a car designed to carry 4 full size adults should have sufficient power to get it going like melvin cat said. A supercharger will definitely help, it'll add torque without sacrificing reliability or fuel consumption. It's not that heavy either. Mazda's last superchared car had a pretty reliable engine if I remember correctly.

I dont think of a 3-series as a 'true sports sedan'....
It is a high quality though overpriced and under-spec'd saloon.

Maybe its a UK thing though.... If my last american hire car is anything to go by , then I guess a 3-series would seem quite sporty ! ;) <joke ! Dont flame me ! >

melvincat03: Amen on the blue accents inside. Wouldn't that be nice with the Silver Metallic?

Skyline Maniac: Definitely more like a useful 2+2. The RX-8 is no sedan, no way, no how.

How about Titanium + blue interior, notb!

Skyline is right about the RX8 is still a 2+2 coupe. The RX8 is a combination of RX7 and BMW 3-series. Wait, it should be a new type of sports car. Don't know. Puzzling!


Should Mazda offer more metallic paints?

Originally posted by wakeech
ahahaha... that sure sounds easy enough (the fuel economy AND torque at the same time), doesn't it??

Honda did it with the new Accord. Honda added More Torque, More Horsepower, and better fuel economy with the same size engine. So it's not impossible.

My request is for more torque. 159lbft ain't nothing.

ah...the torque thing again, the rx-8 has a final drive ratio of 4.4 something doesn't it? what do most other cars have?

Originally posted by lefuton
ah...the torque thing again, the rx-8 has a final drive ratio of 4.4 something doesn't it? what do most other cars have?

I do not know. Not that it matters. How much thrust do you expect to get with 159lbft of torque on a 3000lbs vehicle? Limited torque is an issue with the RX8. Whether or not people here acknowledge that fact. That's another question.

actually it does matter, but this horse has been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten again so i'll just leave it at that

Originally posted by Spoonie
Limited torque is an issue with the RX8.

That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Yours. Whether others share your opinion or not is another question! ;)

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by Gord96BRG


That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Yours. Whether others share your opinion or not is another question! ;)

Regards,
Gordon

So if the RX-8 had only 50lbft of torque, you wouldn't consider that to be limited torque? Or would that just be an opinion?:)
I guess its all relative. 50lbft might be enough for one person. That doesn't mean that 50lbft isn't a low number.

Originally posted by Spoonie


Honda did it with the new Accord. Honda added More Torque, More Horsepower, and better fuel economy with the same size engine. So it's not impossible.

My request is for more torque. 159lbft ain't nothing.


Honda increased efficiency by increasing displacement of the Accord's I4 engine from 2.3L to 2.4L. As for the 3.0L V6, what you said is true!

159lbft torque is adequate but not sufficient for a performance car.

Originally posted by melvincat03
159lbft torque is adequate but not sufficient for a performance car.

That sums it up.

Is the RX8's top speed high enough, even nobody can legally drive up to its current 144-148mph top speed? See C&D, R&T, and Automobile Mag April 2003 issue for details.

Originally posted by melvincat03
159lbft torque is adequate but not sufficient for a performance car.

it sure has been in the past... harken back to previous rotary powered sports cars, and none have enjoyed this much low end punch, range through the middle, or top end power... it never stopped any owner of these cars from having a good time in them.
...same as goes for a Miata: how many people really bitch about how "slow" it is?? no one, 'cause they didn't care the second they sat in it. try and see with the RX-8... we're still only racing on paper, sheesh.

the car could be more relaible than the 7s, and i need turbo in my car!!

Originally posted by RotaryXTypeSH
the car could be more relaible than the 7s, and i need turbo in my car!! That's one thing I *don't* want in my car.

I’d really like to see (as an optional if it can’t be standard) a complete fully functional gage display pack that clearly and accurately shows the normal and abnormal state of things with regards to: engine temperature, voltage/battery (Hey Mazda, there's room right now for a voltage/battery gage that will fit tastefully in the dash by the oil temp gage ...and as of now it's IMHO sorely missing) and oil pressure with an analog speedometer (or some kind of digital indicator that replaces the swing of the needle- maybe some kind of horizontal bar graph underor above the digital speedometer readout screen or else a digital light ring around the edge of the tach gage)! As of now the gages that are I hope will be fully funtional ...

Or a fastback version!

:D

they should offer turbo as an option ;)

Originally posted by Spoonie


Honda did it with the new Accord. Honda added More Torque, More Horsepower, and better fuel economy with the same size engine. So it's not impossible.

My request is for more torque. 159lbft ain't nothing.


Well, if you do your homework and research the continuous development done on the rotary engine by Mazda you'll realize that they've been increasing power, torque and reliability while at the same time improving fuel economy. Starting with the 10A, 12A and all the different 13B versions all the way up to the RENESIS (same size engine) there's no denying that the rotary engine has come a long way. Also, you're getting 250hp / 159lb-ft on a 1.3L naturaly aspirated engine that can rev to 10000rpm!! What else can you ask for? :D

Originally posted by Spoonie


Honda did it with the new Accord. Honda added More Torque, More Horsepower, and better fuel economy with the same size engine. So it's not impossible.

My request is for more torque. 159lbft ain't nothing.

it's funny that you should list the Accord there... i did some research, sparked by FamilyGuy's post about the TSX...
the 3.0L V6 Accord has 240hp (less than the RX-8), 212lbft of torque ('bout 52 more lbft of force at peak, which is about 33% more), weighs 3200lbs-ish (only 200 more than the RX-8), and does the 0-60 sprint in 6.57s (from Motortrend, sited on vtec.net), which as you know is 0.6s slower than the RX-8... hmmm... strange.

also consider that the TSX, which as FamilyGuy put it, would be the closest Honda competitor with the RX-8 (if you needed to have the rear seats) has no more torque (166lbft, i think) and less horsepower (200hp) than the RX-8, while weighing more (about 3100??)... and still you complain about torque.
i know your point was about improvement in utilization of some amount of displacement (which is definitely not related to engine size or mass very linearly, both of which are far more important), and that you think Mazda should be doing better than 159lbft in a 1.3L motor that has a 10mm stroke (about 1/9th of most piston poppers)... it's a marvel.

...also, i thought you were an Integra/VTEC guy?? i know that revhappy is, but weren't/aren't you too?? if so, how could you complain about these numbers?? *shrug* whatever. i'm just saying, stating that "159lb ft ain't nothing" is not only a double negative, but a fairly ignorant comment as well...

The Renesis is a big achievement of the Rotary development. Fuel economy alone shows it. Mazda's effort in the Rotary refinement shows their technology stands above other manufactures that failed to refine the Rotary! :)

As for the 159lbft torque, different people will have different opinions against it. There are many ways to look at the adequatcy of this amount of output.

1. When the RX-8 is seated with 4 passengers (as the RX8 is designed to do so), could it still perform well?

2. For a 3000lb car, 159lbft torque is enough or not? How much passing power there is and how it will perform on steepy hill?

3. C&D and R&T recently tested the RX8. C&D editors said the car doesn't have enough mid-range punch, assuming 3000rpm-4000rpm. So the RX8 needs to be revved at high RPMs. But, both magazines posted 0-60mph in 5.9s when launched at high 7000rpm, and Automobile Mag got 6.2s. Then the horsepower might offsetted the torque?!

Anyway! It's just so good to have the Rotary back again. Don't push our luck!

Originally posted by melvincat03

159lbft torque is adequate but not sufficient for a performance car.
That's your (ignorant) opinion, not fact.

First of all, the s2000 has about the same tq/weight ratio as the 8, and it's regarded as one of the best "pure" sports cars today. Second, the 8 still has faster acceleration that many cars with more torque.

There are two ways of making power: a bigger, heavy engine with lots of torque, or a small light higher-revving engine. It's a matter of taste, and there are tradeoffs in both cases. If revving and shifting is such a problem for you, then I'm sure there's a nice disposable Pontiac out there with your name on it.

Originally posted by melvincat03

159lbft torque is adequate but not sufficient for a performance car.

I agree, it's not enough for a PERFORMANCE car. However, I do believe it's plenty for a SPORTS car.

Originally posted by m477

First of all, the s2000 has about the same tq/weight ratio as the 8, and it's regarded as one of the best "pure" sports cars today. Second, the 8 still has faster acceleration that many cars with more torque.



The S2000 has less horsepower than the RX8 and more torque, but the S2000 goes 0-60 a bit faster than the 8. "C&D once got 0-60mph in 5.8s and the RX8 in 5.9s." Race car drivers will know how much difference does a 0.1s or 0.2s make.

And for your (ignorant) information, the S2000 is a 2-seater, whereas the RX8 is a 4-seater. Another example would be the 2003 4-Runner, the V6 has more horsepower and less torque than the V8, but the V8 is faster than the V6, why? Can you stand seeing the Rx-8 unable to catch up a Camry or others just because the 8 doesn't have enough torque when seated 4 people?

For the "pure" sports car thing, do you suppose you drive your car in traffic and rev to 7000rpm+ all the time? And if shifting is such fun for you, please watch the engine temp. gauge often. Gas stations and auto mechanics should be very happy to have customers like you.

We are not saying the RX8 doesn't have enough torque, but for a 4-passenger performance car, is it too much to demand a bit more torque??? None of us here says the 159lbft torque is a joke, but we are just saying a bit more torque would be preferable.

ugh.

*beating a dead horse*

Originally posted by melvincat03

For the "pure" sports car thing, do you suppose you drive your car in traffic and rev to 7000rpm+ all the time? And if shifting is such fun for you, please watch the engine temp. gauge often. Gas stations and auto mechanics should be very happy to have customers like you.

We are not saying the RX8 doesn't have enough torque, but for a 4-passenger performance car, is it too much to demand a bit more torque??? None of us here says the 159lbft torque is a joke, but we are just saying a bit more torque would be preferable.

Finally someone who gets it.

Originally posted by melvincat03


The S2000 has less horsepower than the RX8 and more torque, but the S2000 goes 0-60 a bit faster than the 8

Wrong. The 8 has more torque than the stook.


Can you stand seeing the Rx-8 unable to catch up a Camry or others just because the 8 doesn't have enough torque when seated 4 people?
Um, how about if you try revving the engine into its powerband?


For the "pure" sports car thing, do you suppose you drive your car in traffic and rev to 7000rpm+ all the time? And if shifting is such fun for you, please watch the engine temp. gauge often. Gas stations and auto mechanics should be very happy to have customers like you.

Show me ONE example of an NA rotary that broke because it was revved too much.

Originally posted by m477

Um, how about if you try revving the engine into its power band?

You should not have to REV the crap out of a "Sports" car to pass a Camry. "OH, Oh Camry up ahead gotta pass; Let me downshift to get in the power band and rev the hell out of the engine". Pardon my ignorance, but passing a Camry should be an effortless affair.
Originally posted by m477
Show me ONE example of an NA rotary that broke because it was revved too much. Rotary or no rotary shifting at 6K-7K RPM everyday, in every gear is not my idea of fun. What ever happened to engine flexibility? It's either everything or not enough in regards to the RX-8's "power band", which really seems to be quite narrow.

Spoonie,

I agree there is a torque issue that I wish could have been addressed. I don't think I should ever have to downshift to pass some joker in a Camry.

However, I have had two RX-7's previous to the Miata I drive now and perhaps it is just how I drive, but unless I am doing a 4th - 5th gear shift, I would say 90% of the time I shift right about red line into the next gear.... I am not actively trying to REV the engine or anything that is just the way I shift.

Personally I am hoping that something will be done about the whole torque issue aftermarket. Nissan in conjunction with Nismo will be offering aftermaket performance mods at the dealerships that will NOT void your warranty on a 350Z. I am hoping that Mazda will do the same with MazdaSpeed or something like that. I think that will make A LOT of people a little more satisfied with the power issue the car has.

Just my dumb opinion.

You should not have to REV the crap out of a "Sports" car to pass a Camry. "OH, Oh Camry up ahead gotta pass; Let me downshift to get in the power band and rev the hell out of the engine". Pardon my ignorance, but passing a Camry should be an effortless affair.I agree there is a torque issue that I wish could have been addressed. I don't think I should ever have to downshift to pass some joker in a Camry.
Does "effortless" mean without shifting? I think you're confusing muscle cars with sports cars. A Mustang AT or a Dodge RAM pickup should pass a Camry effortlessly. Get those if you want muscle without shifting. If you want something with a rev-happy responsive engine, a snickety-snick shifter and great handling, you want a sports car; get a Miata, S2k, or an RX-8.
Rotary or no rotary shifting at 6K-7K RPM everyday, in every gear is not my idea of fun. What ever happened to engine flexibility?Have you ever owned a rotary? Shifting at 6-7k is not work by any stretch of my imagination and undeniably fun to me. Engine flexibility/grunt is replaced with driver flexibility, ie, shifting to the best gear. If that's too much work for you than you need to stay away from sports cars.

Originally posted by ggreen29
Does "effortless" mean without shifting? I think you're confusing muscle cars with sports cars. A Mustang AT or a Dodge RAM pickup should pass a Camry effortlessly. Get those if you want muscle without shifting. If you want something with a rev-happy responsive engine, a snickety-snick shifter and great handling, you want a sports car; get a Miata, S2k, or an RX-8.
Have you ever owned a rotary? Shifting at 6-7k is not work by any stretch of my imagination and undeniably fun to me. Engine flexibility/grunt is replaced with driver flexibility, ie, shifting to the best gear. If that's too much work for you than you need to stay away from sports cars.
No I'm not confusing muscle cars with sports cars. Is the 350Z a sports car or a muscle car? The 350z has decent Low to midrange grunt. And what about the Subaru WRX? The S2000 and the RX8 are good sports cars but by any means they do not define how a sports car engine should operate. There are different options available to attain the same goal. I just prefer cars that have decent thrust throughout its rev range not just the top-end. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Spoonie

You should not have to REV the crap out of a "Sports" car to pass a Camry. "OH, Oh Camry up ahead gotta pass; Let me downshift to get in the power band and rev the hell out of the engine". Pardon my ignorance, but passing a Camry should be an effortless affair.

You're thinking of muscle cars, not sports cars. Miata, s2k, RX-8 and even the FD all need to be revved to be effective, and they are all sports cars. Get a Cadillac if you don't want any involvement in the driving process.


Rotary or no rotary shifting at 6K-7K RPM everyday, in every gear is not my idea of fun. What ever happened to engine flexibility? It's either everything or not enough in regards to the RX-8's "power band", which really seems to be quite narrow.

You've obviously never actually driven a rotary. While pushing my daily driver to 4k can be a chore, 6k is nothing in my FD. Pretty much every review has mentioned that the redline buzzer is needed because it was so easy to redline the car without even realising it. Maybe you should read some of the reviews.

Originally posted by m477
You're thinking of muscle cars, not sports cars. Miata, s2k, RX-8 and even the FD all need to be revved to be effective, and they are all sports cars... Not only that, but Ferrari's, Lambo's, Porsche's, NSXs, Supras, etc, and even race cars need to be revved to get into the power band. It's the nature of most high-revving sports car engines.

Engines in something like a Mustang or Camaro are not the "norm" for sports cars in the world. It might be something that Americans consider more "sporty", because most of what we see and equate "sports" with is a Mustang or Camaro (or Corvetter, which frankly is an expensive, higher class muscle car).

As far as keeping the revs in the 6-7k band, that's not necessary either. If you just want to sit back, press the gas, and pass everyone, then the RX8 might not be for you.

---jps

Originally posted by Sputnik
Not only that, but Ferrari's, Lambo's, Porsche's, NSXs, Supras, etc, and even race cars need to be revved to get into the power band. It's the nature of most high-revving sports car engines.

---jps

any engine anywhere works better at high rpm than low, unless it's built to only be efficient at low rpms, which would be stupid anyways (some kind of comprimize is needed: rpms are nothing but good if you can run them without worry).

the RENESIS is BUILT and DESIGNED to be REVVED!! it is SUPPOST to be driven that way... if you "don't" or "can't" drive an engine that way, whatever, don't get an RX-8...

but quicks8, you OWN a maita and have had several (FC??) RX-7's as past cars: the dynamic of the RX-8 won't be very different, and in fact has a lot more torque than your Miata or an NA FC (with more than a TII before the turbo's really hit the sweet spot... ie, below 2.5k, normal driving range), why would you be worried?? it's understandable that more torque is nice, but with an engine and a car like this, especially one so obviously quick, why would it still be a concern??

Originally posted by m477

Maybe you should read some of the reviews.

I have read the reviews. Here is a quote from Car and Driver (April 2003) G35coupe vs. RX-8 vs. Mustang SVT Cobra comparison test:

"Despite these handling advantages, the RX8 is the slowest on the racetrack, and that because of a shortage of midrange grunt in its rotary engine. Peak power decent at 250 horsepower, but it's developed at 8500 rpm. Torque, however, is a mere 159lbft, down 111 and 231pound-feet on the other two cars, and that comes at 5,500 rpm, which is nearly as high as the other engines peaks. Think Honda S2000 Power band, and you get the idea.

To get the most out of this car, you must be willing to use it's 9000 rpm redline and maybe even the additional 500 rpm to the engines rev limiter. As usual with Rotaries that's no hardship. The engine gains rpm so smoothly and freely that a tone sounds at 8500 rpm to remind you that the redline is approaching.

With the help of an 8000-rpm clutch drop and the engine buzzing like a flock of angry hornets, the RX-8 scooted to 60 in 5.9 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds at 96 mph. But that performance falls off considerably without the tire-frying launch. In our street-start test from 5 to 60 mph, the RX-8 needed 7.5 seconds, 1.6 seconds longer than the hard-launch time, which is twice the deficit we found with either of the other cars. And despite its trim weigh and short gearing (20 mph per 1000 rpm in sixth), the RX-8 also had the slowest top-gear acceleration times by a wide margin."

Unlike you, I see the complete picture.

Originally posted by Spoonie

Unlike you, I see the complete picture.
So let me get this straight, you cut and paste the two paragraphs that criticize the 8 out of a comparo article where the RX-8 actually comes in first place. Then you call that the "complete picture". Oh, the irony.

Also, nobody can answer my challenge of finding just ONE rotary that broke due to revving, and NONE of the detractors here have ever actually driven a rotary-powered car. Who's not looking at the complete picture here?

Originally posted by Spoonie
"Despite these handling advantages, the RX8 is the slowest on the racetrack, and that because of a shortage of midrange grunt in its rotary engine. Peak power decent at 250 horsepower, but it's developed at 8500 rpm. Torque, however, is a mere 159lbft, down 111 and 231pound-feet on the other two cars, and that comes at 5,500 rpm, which is nearly as high as the other engines peaks. Think Honda S2000 Power band, and you get the idea.

Since we're talking sports cars and not just drag racers, not considering the handling advantages is more than misleading - that's what differentiates a sports car from an econobox with a hot engine, right?

Throw back in this paragraph from the C+D review:Achieving this communication and responsiveness at low limits is not so hard, but the RX-8 does it at 0.91 g, a considerable margin beyond the cornering capabilities of these two competitors. Its transient handling is similarly superior. And the RX-8 is the best stopper of this bunch.

So in every other performance measure beyond straight line acceleration, the RX-8 easily bests the competition. How inadequate, right?

(As for "think Honda S2000 power band" - C+D should think again. While the RX-8 torque peak is high at 5.5K rpm, it's nowhere near as high as the S2K torque peak at 7.5K rpm!)

It's most interesting that even with a 111 hp deficit, the RX-8 was only slower than the Cobra on the test track (the one that included curves, not just a straight line) by about 1 second per lap. If C+D had tested a Mustang Mach 1 rather than the Cobra (with only 53 hp more than RX-8), the RX-8 would have trounced it on the track. Is the RX-8 really lacking that much power, when a Cobra needs a 111 hp advantage just to stay slightly ahead on a twisty track???

Here's another quote from C+D:The RX-8's feathery weight provides the kind of delicate responsiveness that cannot be duplicated by a heavier machine, no matter how wide its tires or stiff its suspension. Much like its smaller sibling, the Miata, the RX-8 almost reads your thoughts and carries out your desires before you even move the controls.

Would you rather have an RX-8 with 50 more lb-ft of torque and 50 more hp, that weighed 300 lbs more? You'd gain a bit of acceleration, and lose the responsiveness of the handling... There's no way I'd take that trade-off.

Regards,
Gordon

I thought most people downshifted when performing the "sports car pass"- I know that when I drove my dad's first generation SHO, which had PLENTY of torque at the time it came out, I always downshifted when I was trying to blow by someone- it was just the nature of the beast. I've also noticed in our '95 SHO, which is an automatic, anytime you REALLY step on it when you're already moving, it seems to downshift to get more power. I suppose I could be wrong, but isn't that what's supposed to happen? Unfortunately, those two cars, and my husbands BMW, are really my only experiences with any type of performance vehicles.

I still think this whole torque argument is rather silly. Just don't buy the car if you don't like it. Don't try to convince everyone else you're right and they're wrong- it won't happen.

Perhaps I am missing something?

Originally posted by Elara

Perhaps I am missing something?

nope! thats it in a nutshell:)

Originally posted by m477

So let me get this straight, you cut and paste the two paragraphs that criticize the 8 out of a comparo article where the RX-8 actually comes in first place. Then you call that the "complete picture". Oh, the irony.


I didn't cut and paste it. I hand typed it. I included some good points and some not so good points. For some strange reason you and several other folks will not acknowledge that not so good points exists with the RX-8. The car is not perfect. "A mere 159 lbft" I guess thats opinion. The RX-8 won the comparison not for its engine but for its handling. Bottom line: The RX8 is a great car with strong points and weak points.

And don't forget fuel mileage. Having to shift at 6000 rpm all the time does not help fuel efficiency. The RX8's mediocre fuel economy proves that.

This is my last post. I'm not buying the RX8 because it is "gutless" in the low to mid rev ranges. The RX8 may be a perfect car for you, but it is far from perfect for me.

Originally posted by Spoonie

This is my last post.
Promise?

Originally posted by m477

Promise?

;) we don't need any goading... just let him leave.

Originally posted by Sputnik
Not only that, but Ferrari's, Lambo's, Porsche's, NSXs, Supras, etc, and even race cars need to be revved to get into the power band. It's the nature of most high-revving sports car engines


So you're saying that the only way that you get decent acceleration out of a Ferrari is to rev it to redline? Not true, those cars have more than enough power and torque at even 3000 rpm to pin you back in your seat. The Lamborghini has a six liter V-12 which is a serious torque monster. You wouldn't even need to redline the lambo to beat (hypothetical )99.9 percent of the cars out there today. The only way the RX8 can hang is to redline the car, which is not a big deal. The RX8 and Lamborghini engines both burn gasoline. You can end all the comparisons after that.

Originally posted by Spoonie


This is my last post.
Liar.

Originally posted by Spoonie
I'm not buying the RX8 because it is "gutless" in the low to mid rev ranges. The RX8 may be a perfect car for you, but it is far from perfect for me.

Sure, the torque could be better - but it is extremely easy to work around, just run 2K rpm higher than you normally would. It's still less "gutless" than the S2000! How are you going to overcome the shortcomings (excessive weight) of something like the G35, 350Z, Cobra - can you easily strip off 200 or 300 (or 700) lbs of weight? It's quite amazing that someone can absolutely eliminate a car from consideration without ever having driven it, when the validation of their concern can only come from driving it! All hail the almighty maximum rated torque on the spec sheet!

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by Elara
I thought most people downshifted when performing the "sports car pass"- I know that when I drove my dad's first generation SHO, which had PLENTY of torque at the time it came out, I always downshifted when I was trying to blow by someone- it was just the nature of the beast. I've also noticed in our '95 SHO, which is an automatic, anytime you REALLY step on it when you're already moving, it seems to downshift to get more power. I suppose I could be wrong, but isn't that what's supposed to happen? Unfortunately, those two cars, and my husbands BMW, are really my only experiences with any type of performance vehicles.

Thank you, Elara! I was dying to respond to that one myself.

As zoom44 stated, you "nutshelled" it!!!

Originally posted by m477


Also, nobody can answer my challenge of finding just ONE rotary that broke due to revving, and NONE of the detractors here have ever actually driven a rotary-powered car.

If you happen to know any street racers, you would know what the FD's biggest problem is...Overheating. They said the RX7s always overheat after continuous high revving. This is why we talk about the torque issue. Can we really rev the hell out of the engine all the time? What about fuel consumption, durability, mechanic failures due to frequent high revving? If the Renesis solved the overheating problem, fine!

By the way, no one has answered can the RX8 still get decent performance when seated 4, even revved into its powerband?

And somebody said Ferraris, Lambs, etc need to rev high to get into their powerband. I don't think so. Lambs have 6.0L V12 engine, and how are you going to rev this car? Those are performance cars, and they have enough torque that can burn tires even in third gear.

However, I do agree with some of your points. The rotary engines need to be revved just like the S2K, NSX, and other "sports cars". The reason why we bring up the torque issue is because the RX8 is so so so nice, we don't want people to "laugh" at the RX8 because it's unable to catch up others. Driving excitment is important, but I really don't want to see the RX8 being beaten.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think RX-7's overheat b/c of constant revving. Older 1st gen and 2nd gen do not overheat like the FD and are also revved. The FD overheated because of the turbo setup which is not in the RX-8.

Also, I do not see any S2000 owners complaining about lack of torque. They enjoy the car for what it is.

Originally posted by quicks8

Personally I am hoping that something will be done about the whole torque issue aftermarket. Nissan in conjunction with Nismo will be offering aftermaket performance mods at the dealerships that will NOT void your warranty on a 350Z. I am hoping that Mazda will do the same with MazdaSpeed or something like that. I think that will make A LOT of people a little more satisfied with the power issue the car has.


According to the Mazda tech rep that was at the Rev It Up event in SF today, MazdaSpeed is developing a hydraulic supercharger for the RX-8. I'd imagine that this will be warranty supported.

Originally posted by melvincat03


If you happen to know any street racers, you would know what the FD's biggest problem is...Overheating. They said the RX7s always overheat after continuous high revving. This is why we talk about the torque issue. Can we really rev the hell out of the engine all the time? What about fuel consumption, durability, mechanic failures due to frequent high revving? If the Renesis solved the overheating problem, fine!

Wrong. Overheating was caused by the twin turbo system. Educate yourself: http://www.rx7club.com.


By the way, no one has answered can the RX8 still get decent performance when seated 4, even revved into its powerband?

You can use any highschool physics textbook for this one...

Originally posted by m477

Wrong. Overheating was caused by the twin turbo system. Educate yourself: http://www.rx7club.com.

Ok! So without the turbo, you'll still rev the hell out of the rotary, right. If I happen to pass by an overheating normally aspired RX8 in the future, I'd be glad to meet you!


[b]
You can use any highschool physics textbook for this one...

What? Common sense would say it's not enough.

Originally posted by melvincat03


What? Common sense would say it's not enough.

Yes it was the turbo. It wasn't just any ordinary turbo. It was one of the first sequential turbo (meant to deal with lag). Very complicated and restrictive + bad cooling system = heat.

Originally posted by chenpin
It was one of the first sequential turbo (meant to deal with lag).

no, it was the first ever sequential turbo system ever in a production car, and i've not really heard of any other production cars trying a sequential system either.

melvincat03, you're really just arguing for arguing's sake: either add something to it, like reason, fact, or information, or shut up.... god, we really do have enough of these kinds of threads already.

Originally posted by wakeech


no, it was the first ever sequential turbo system ever in a production car, and i've not really heard of any other production cars trying a sequential system either

The Last generation Supra Turbo had the sequential turbo setup.

I promise this is my last post.;) Or if I do post again, I will not bring up the torque issue. Sorry is I ruffled a few feathers. I said earlier that the RX-8 is far from perfect for me. That isn't exactly true. The only thing that is stopping me is the torque issue. And the only way to find out if the car is for me is to drive the thing. Everything else is almost pure speculation.

Originally posted by Spoonie


The Last generation Supra Turbo had the sequential turbo setup.



Nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong about the torque issue. It's really a personal opinion. Why somebody like wakeech so serious about it???

Besides, the title of this thread is Demand. There are so many things to talk about (see the 1st page 1st message). The purpose of this thread is to seek the RX8's goods and bads. If nobody criticizes anything, then how can the Mazda people know our thoughts??? It's all for the betterman of the RX8. Please don't have only YOUR way! We want the RX8 to be a winner!

It's all right Spoonie. You're not wrong. It's just that somebody is way too stubborn. Please continue to post!

By the way, no one has answered can the RX8 still get decent performance when seated 4, even revved into its powerband?I posted this elsewhere:

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. As these are software projections they should be considered theoretical rather than factual.

Test.....RX8-MT.....RX8-w/4
0-30.....2.14.........2.45 sec
0-40.....2.91.........3.34 sec
0-60.....6.11.........6.78 sec
0-70.....7.35.........8.41 sec
0-100..14.44.......16.65 sec

¼ mile..14.4..........15.1 sec
.......@100mph...@96mph

Top
Speed...156mph.....155mph

Fuel Economy
City......20.4mpg.....19.3mpg
Hiway...28.6mpg.....28.6mpg

Originally posted by melvincat03
Why somebody like wakeech so serious about it???

my problem isn't that you don't think the engine's strong enough, it's that this is a completely redundant discussion that's been held for months, and continues to roll on on both sides... i'm very sorry to pick on you melvincat03, it was late that night, and i had a rough day... but there isn't anything new coming to the table on both sides: it's just annoying to continue to see it pop up in nearly every thread.

...all that aside, it's a good thing to voice opinions certainly when they're clearly thought out, and bring a new perspective (even on an old subject).

btw, i didn't know the JZE had sequential turbos: i figured they were parallel just like in the Nissan 6cyl engines (the V in the Z, and the I in the Sky ;) hee hee) of the 1990's... :) neato. ummm... k. i'm gonna have to learn about Toyota's system now!! :D

How about:
1. A larger fuel tank, say 20 gal
2. Struts to hold the hood up

Originally posted by wakeech


no, it was the first ever sequential turbo system ever in a production car, and i've not really heard of any other production cars trying a sequential system either.

I would say that but I've seen people get in flame wars over production dates (mostly with the Supra) so I avoided that with my "one of the first" line. :D And plz dont nitpick so much! ;) :p

All this rev talking is kinda futile no? Its like which came first, the egg or the chicken.

I still havent seen or drove a rx8 yet (at the dealers), but i have driven the 2004 maxima, and i would have to say, for all those wanting more Torque, get the maxima. 1 exciting peice of a$$.

Maxima and the 8 are in diff class, but they both have 4 doors, and do about 6 sec in 0-60. Maxima's torque is crazy, I didnt have to down shift at all to pass by cars, the8 might be a more engaging experience on the race track, but on a daily drive and occasional FWY race, i think the maxima might be the car for you.

I am in the minority, so i wont bug you guys too much, although i am a big RX-8 Fan. Has anyone actually seen and driven a RX 8 in so cali?

How was the Maxima otherwise? I was designated driver for a batchelorette party last night, driving a 2000 Maxima...the steering drove me nuts, because it was squishy, imprecise, and I couldn't feel the road. I was also disappointed in the torque- I had to really step on it to get it to do anything(and this was with anything from 2-5 of us in the car- it didn't seem to make a difference). It also felt like I was driving a really big, heavy sedan (which I guess it is). I know they were fixing the torque issue, and from what you stated, TheSack, they did- but how was the rest of it?

Sorry guys, I realize this is off topic, but I've heard so much about the Maxima that the minute I heard that someone had driven a new one I was curious about their impression.

The torque steer is maddening. I dont know if you driven the Altima yet, but its like that, cept more crazy. Even with the Limited Slip Differential (only comes in Manual) Its like riding a mule. Automatic (5 psd on the SE models) were kinda fun toodrive, just step on the gas and let it romp.

The manual is totally awesome, all that torque makes u pass anything with out down shifting. Going up hill? no problem, all the way through 1-6.

I was about to get the 8 but now i dont know. After test driving and seeing what the maxima goes for fully loaded. ($31k .. msrp is 34 fully loaded) I m not sure if i want the Rx8, but im still waiting to drive the 8 in hopes that it will be more of a engaging ride.

until the Rx8 comes out.....;)

Originally posted by chenpin
I would say that but I've seen people get in flame wars over production dates (mostly with the Supra) so I avoided that with my "one of the first" line.

production dates be damned!! which one was PATENTED first??? that's easy to see... unargueable.

anyhoo, it's my business to nitpick: keeping the facts straight is half the battle... but if it was that close (i didn't know that the 5th gen (it was the 5th, right?) supra was built in 1992) then you were definitely more correct. :)

Actually, Mazda is credited with the first sequential twin turbo production car not due to the FD, but the JC Cosmo (3-rotor twin turbo), which came out in '88 or '89 IIRC.

Originally posted by m477
Actually, Mazda is credited with the first sequential twin turbo production car not due to the FD, but the JC Cosmo (3-rotor twin turbo), which came out in '88 or '89 IIRC.

ahhhhhhh... :)