Why would they make this car only have 162lb ft of torque? I think it needs atleast 240. Hell 300 would be nice. You'll have to rev the shit out of it to get it to perform, like the S2000. That's why they rev to the moon.

Remember we are talking about a car that is 2700 to 3000 pounds. From what I've heard the rotary revs much faster than a piston engine. According to road and track 90% torque will be available at 3000 rpm.

PLUS: if you have time check this link it explains why high rpm torque is better.
http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html

i agree! 162 lbs/ft has sounded low to me since i first heard it? i have never had a rotory before is this normal? i'm used to alot more but ive mostly driven muscle cars. i even got to drive my dads '87 buick grand national on occasion which delivered 300bhp and 300 lbs/ft of torque! it would shove you into your seat! 0-60 in under 5 seconds..... unless the road was wet and then forget. so sometimes (i can't beleive i'm saying this!:eek: )you can have to much torque. still, i want my rx-8 to be the first one off the line at a stoplight!

162 does sound a bit low on paper, but you have to remember this is a 1.3L normally aspirated motor, so you really can't expect it to have gobs of torque.

To make up for that, the motor revs to 9000 rpm and the 6 speed tranny should have relatively tight gearing. On an S2000, a similarly "torqueless" car, it is a little gutless off the line, but once it reaches the middle of the rpm range it's got plenty of punch. And when it reaches 6000, you'd better make sure the steering wheel is pointed straight! Keep in mind that this "torqueless" car manages 0-60 in the low 5 sec range and runs the 1/4 mile in the low 14/high 13 sec range.

I think the important thing for Mazda to focus on is the weight. Even the 2970 lb that R&T quoted is a bit heavy IMO. Load the car down with a few passengers, turn on the AC, and the thing will struggle. Mazda needs to keep the weight below 3000 lb.

I think that a automatic transmissiion will kill this engine.

If that long torque/hp article teaches us anything, it's not the peak number that matters. It's the gearing and longevity of the torque peak. High revs + proper gearing make the comparatively low peak torque figure kinda moot. Especially if it peaks at say 7500 rpm and has 90% of it available at 3000rpm. ;) That is a wide power band. If the gearing is made to take advantage of that wide band, 162 lb./ft. will be fine with me until RB or Mazdaspeed makes a exhaust system to raise it up a bit. :)

I've never had a rotary engined car. Maybe it's different. Granted it revs to 9k, but who in the hell wants to be at the rev limit everytime you want a little "go"? For instance, the 350Z has 287hp and 274lb ft. That's where the RX should be or damn close. The R&T article said that he had to rape it to get really good power which could be cumbersome in everyday use. I drove the Rx-7 once and it pulled like a crazed animal. if it's similar to that, i'll take it. Actually, I think either way I am going to get this car. I love the way it looks in yellow and I'm sure it'll do just fine.

at first....

In a brief test drive, I found that this powerplant, much like the Honda S2000's VTEC inline-4, produced most of its power in the upper rev range, which is fun and rewarding on a racetrack but quite cumbersome during real-world driving. I told Mazda's head of product planning, Phil Martens, that the Renesis needed more pop down low.

"We're working on that now," he replied.

then a few months later...

Turn the ignition key, and the 2-rotor Wankel comes to life with a familiar, melodious zing. Depress the accelerator pedal and you'll find that the 2970-lb. sports car leaves the line in appropriate sports-car fashion, chirping its rear 225/45ZR-18 tires before leaping forward. (Standard models will come with 16-in. wheels.) It was immediately evident that this latest version of the Renesis had significantly more low-end punch than before, but its sweet spot remained in the middle of the rpm spectrum.


With 90 percent of peak torque available at 3250 rpm, the RX-8 seems to find its true stride when the tachometer needle sweeps past the 3000-rpm mark, surging forward with alacrity. And the acceleration keeps building all the way to its 9000-rpm redline. Sixty miles per hour comes and goes in roughly 6 seconds; the quarter-mile mark in about 14.5.

Now?

My guess is that they haven't stopped tweaking the engine/drivetrain?

Torque is not everything: try a 126 lb-ft Lotus 340R, it does zero to 60 mph in 5.0 seconds, quarter-mile mark in 13.6 sec. at 99.7 mph

Welcome to rotaries. Drive 'em like you stole 'em. ;) Repeat after me: "Redline buzzers are there to be heard". :D

Originally posted by RX8_Man
I've never had a rotary engined car. Maybe it's different. Granted it revs to 9k, but who in the hell wants to be at the rev limit everytime you want a little "go"? For instance, the 350Z has 287hp and 274lb ft. That's where the RX should be or damn close. The R&T article said that he had to rape it to get really good power which could be cumbersome in everyday use. I drove the Rx-7 once and it pulled like a crazed animal. if it's similar to that, i'll take it. Actually, I think either way I am going to get this car. I love the way it looks in yellow and I'm sure it'll do just fine.

You're not going to see 350Z-like torque numbers without forced induction. I'm guessing the RX7 you drove was a 3rd gen? Well, the sequential turbos helped that rotary make a lot of torque. You can't expect the same from an NA motor.

I think most people that are used to regular rotaries or any Honda/Acura VTEC motor should be ok with the RX8. If you're coming from a large displacement torque monster, then you might want to take an extended test drive before you buy one.

Torquey motors are great and in everyday driving situations, they're far more useful. It's nice being able to lug it at 2000 rpm, whereas in your torque-challenged car, you'd have to drop down a gear (or 2) to get some pop. Then again, if the shifter in the RX8 is anything like a Miata or S2000, then it will be no problem for me to row through the gears all the time.

Yeah, the Rx-7 I drove was 3rd generation and had the turbos. I'm driving a Maxima now that has 255hp and 200sum lb ft. It does me just fine. The power is there when I need it. I would get the 350Z, but they have 5 different models and I not paying 35k for 287hp. I'd find a nice 00 Vette for 30-35K and be done with it.

"I've never driven a rotary, but 162 lb. feet of torque is too low!"

If you've never driven a rotary, you'll just have to either trust those of us who have or really understand the torque/hp link to understand that the rating of "162 lb. feet" means very little.

Also, if you've come from muscle cars (or most cars!), revving the engine out isn't a whole lot of fun. On rotaries it's a blast!

If you aren't familiar with rotaties, ask yourself why there is such an obsessive following when there hasn't been a new rotary engined car in the states for years. They're truly special engines, but you've got to drive one to understand why.


Happiness is 8,000 PRM with more to go! :D

Of course, a broad torque band is desirable. A peak torque at high rpm is acceptable under these conditions particularly when the engine is as high revving as 9000 rpm! Nevertheless, this wonderful engine is underpowered. The admirable qualities of this torque band can not make up for the fact that several sport cars have torques of apx. 250-300 ft-lb. Some cars you can get used for a price similar to the new RX8 that will provide more than 300 ft-lbs (ex. the corvette).

Don't disc the muscle cars and dragsters. That's an American heritage. Here in America streets are often straight, where as curves are in abundance in Europe. Perhaps, that is why historically America seems to respect the quarter mile racers while Europe esteems handling?

In the end, perhaps what matters is not a discussion of torque but the absolute fact of how long does it take to make it through the quarter mile and what is the slalom speed.

I do hope that Mazda will offer a turbo (or otherwise enhanced engine) for this car. Otherwise, the performance of the RX8 may not compete well with true sport cars of circa 2004.

Everyone keeps saying that it'll be okay if your at 9k RPMS. That's a given. How many times a day are you at the redline in your current car? Most cars feel good when you push em to redline. I'm talking mostly about everyday, around the block driving. You need to have the TQ available. I had a V6 Honda Accord that had 205lb ft. If you look at it like that, an accord with more TQ than a RX8. Doesnt sound right to me. Now I know that a Honda wont be faster, but #'s. What does the S2000 have? I drove that car and I had to stay a gear low in traffic just to have the thrust I needed when I needed it (not enough TQ).

i recently got to drive a freinds s2000. nice ride but you need to be up in the rpm range to feel the power. i know i shouldn't be saying this but i ( ahhhhh!) have to consider gas mileage. if i have to keep it at 9000( that still amazes me-9000 rpm!) for power, my mileage will be really low and my wife will make me sell 'cause it uses too much gas. this will be my daily driver.

The RX8 redlines at 8k. On the tach you have 1-7.5 in white and 8-9 in red.

The S2000 has 240hp@8300rpm and 153lb-ft trq@7500rpm. Keep in mind it only weighs 2810 lb and despite being "torqueless", still manages 1/4 mile times in the low 14/high 13 range.

You're absolutely correct that it's not practical to be at 9000rpm all the time, it eats up gas and it's so loud that it'll draw too much attention (especially the police). For everyday driving situations, the S2000 is adequate in the regular rpm range.

Ultimately, it comes down to which side of the sports car camp you're on. On one side, we have the heavier, torque monsters like the Vettes and 350Z. The other side, has the lighter, more nimble cars like the RX-8, S2000, and a Miata.

Keep in mind, a torqueless car really isn't meant for the 1/4 mile dragstrip. If that's what you're into, then the RX-8 is not for you.

Nah, i'm not into the dragsrtip in a car, I got a motorcycle for that. I just want a car that I know has balls waiting to be kicked. Who knows, Mazda may surprise us and change it. None of the figures so far are written in stone. You made an excellent point. I'd love to get the Performance model of the 350Z, but not for 35k.

Originally posted by rbeverjr
The admirable qualities of this torque band can not make up for the fact that several sport cars have torques of apx. 250-300 ft-lb. Some cars you can get used for a price similar to the new RX8 that will provide more than 300 ft-lbs (ex. the corvette).
Again we are only speaking of peak torque here. I will take a 162 lb./ft. through a 4500 RPM curve over a 300 lb./ft. though a 1000 RPM curve any day. It more than makes up for it, especially if the gearing is up to the job. It's what makes it to the ground that matters.

In the end, perhaps what matters is not a discussion of torque but the absolute fact of how long does it take to make it through the quarter mile and what is the slalom speed.
Bingo! :D

Originally posted by RX8_Man
Everyone keeps saying that it'll be okay if your at 9k RPMS. That's a given. How many times a day are you at the redline in your current car?
Well, technically my current rotary car is not running due to the engine swap project in progress. ;) but when it was running, I heard that redline buzzer countless times per day. And no, I didn't blow the engine before the swap. I just wanted more go. ;)

Originally posted by zoom44
if i have to keep it at 9000( that still amazes me-9000 rpm!) for power, my mileage will be really low and my wife will make me sell 'cause it uses too much gas. this will be my daily driver.
If you are concerned about power AND mileage, maybe a rotary is not the ticket for your daily driver.

The Renesis is going to get better mileage than the previous rotaries, but under continual redlining, it won't be that fantastic. Then again, neither would any other car's mileage under constant redlining conditions. ;)

Originally posted by RX8_Man
The RX8 redlines at 8k. On the tach you have 1-7.5 in white and 8-9 in red.

That's an old pic. Max HP is at 8500 RPM, redline at 9K.

its true that whats important is gets to the road. that rear multi-link should help. i can't wait 'til they let one of the car mags test this thing.

Here's what I wrote on the 350Z vs. RX8 thread (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=d0):

Third, torque rules in one sense, but high RPM torque is far better than low RPM torque. The reason is GEARING. If there are two engines with identically shaped torque curves, one produces 150 lb ft. of torque at 8,000 RPM and another produces 250 lb. ft. of torque at 4,000 RPM, which will have the most torque in a car? The one with 150 lb. ft. will. It's easy to picture if you simply add a 2:1 gear on the "lower" powered one that reduces the speed at the shaft to 4,000 RPM. That shaft will be able to twist with 300 lb. ft. of torque at 4k RPM due to the 2:1 gearing advantage. If you want a clear and simple description of this, click here (http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html). Besides, there's nothing better than reving an engine up to 8 grand! Reving an engine to 8 grand or above is "work" in the same way that eating ice cream is "work". Sure, you have to move to do it, but the rewards are well worth the effort.

Some people still didn't get it, and so I added more explanatory stuff here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=32618&perpage=15&pagenumber=2).

The people who have said that the real issue is what makes it to the pavement have it exactly correct. If you're worried about torque, hp, 0-60 times, etc., get a Camaro. If you want to drive, you'll have to test drive a whole lot of cars, and make your decision that way. I've been driving tons of cars the past few months in search of a fun, late-model used car, and decided on a Miata. Before I drove it, the low HP and torque numbers did place it low on my list, but once you get over the image (from some ignorant people) and stats, it's the most fun/reliable car anywhere close to the price (12-15k for <20,000 miles). Absolutely, hands down, no questions asked. Hopefully the RX-8 will have some of the Miata's soul.

Those who buy based on stats and bragging rights won't get it, and those who buy based on how it drives might, depending on how well Mazda succeeds.

I'm finally starting to understand the whole torque thing, but for those interested in possibly modding the car when it comes out... what kind of mods would a person have to put on to get more torque? I know of hella amounts of stuff to add hp and handling, but I'm asking specifically about torque. Or would that go back to the whole hp = (torque) / (rpm) thing?

Stuff in a V8. ;)

You could turbo it, but only do so knowing that the last gen. RX-7 didn't respond well to turboing. Heat issues. Rebuilds after 60K miles. Etc.

One large turbo rather than two turbos might do the trick. Guarentee either way it will either be cost prohibitive or nearly technically impossible.

i just read something in one of the mags thats doing a rebuild on a twin turbo. they basically said the same thing. out with the twins and in with the single larger one. the twins made too much heat and combined with the restrictive stock exhaust was just killing the engines. the guy doing the work for them said thats the first thing he does when rebuilding a third gen rx7, getting rid of the twins.

ya, the twin turbos aren't as efficient as a single one, but give better boost at low RPM, and way higher boost at high RPM than a supercharger...
but, one thing first... i don't think that the exhaust system is as "restrictive" as teh aftermarket guys say it is... sure, it looks that way, but restriction isnt' always a bad thing, it's waht gives you torque, but robs you of HP... you need the back pressure (for the opposite and equal reaction of pushing the car) to make teh torque...
and i don't hink that factory enigneers are so easily being outdone by these after-market folks... they are, after all, the best and teh brightest, and optimize it to work a different way, not "worse" than aftermarket ones...
and another thing, FI will add the "replacement for displacement" you want down low... remember that torque of this kind is unparalleled in ANY OTHER TYPE OF GASOLINE ENGINE of coparable displacement...
so, i think you're looking for a super charger system... lower heat, no need for fucking around with a special exhaust system (i mean any aftermarket one would work) and less heat problems than a turbo system, and cheaper and easier to install... though, not as much HP

good point about the factory tecs. has anyone had a supercharged version instead of a turboed one?

Originally posted by wakeech
you need the back pressure (for the opposite and equal reaction of pushing the car)

Dude, we ain't talking about jet engines here! Exhaust back pressure increases pumping losses which robs power and efficiency. The only viable reasons I know of to have any exhaust backpressure are:

1. Impart a measure of exhaust gas recirculation which reduces combustion temps to reduce NOX emmissions.
2. Back pressure can be a byproduct of having small enough exhaust passages to allow exhaust scavenging by way of momentum effects. This is usually only important in the cylinder head and outlet manifold/header.

You can't engine brake without exhaust back pressure. Really high flow exhausts minimize the effectiveness of slowing down this way.

I do a lot of engine braking or transmission breaking as some people call it. It's nice to have the car in the gear you'll want it in coming out of the corner as you are going into the corner. You'll break out of the corner faster and be able to keep a cleaner line through the turn. Plus it's fun.
:)

Engine braking is not the fastest way to drive. Using the brakes, double clutching, and rev-matching is the best way to drive a car fast. It is hard to learn and even more difficult to master while dealing with all the othertasks of driving. Engine braking is fun, but keep in mind its not great driving.

Third, torque rules in one sense, but high RPM torque is far better than low RPM torque. The reason is GEARING. If there are two engines with identically shaped torque curves, one produces 150 lb ft. of torque at 8,000 RPM and another produces 250 lb. ft. of torque at 4,000 RPM, which will have the most torque in a car? The one with 150 lb. ft. will. It's easy to picture if you simply add a 2:1 gear on the "lower" powered one that reduces the speed at the shaft to 4,000 RPM. That shaft will be able to twist with 300 lb. ft. of torque at 4k RPM due to the 2:1 gearing advantage. If you want a clear and simple description of this

I'm no expert but to me it sounds like your logic is correct but your implications are wrong.

* If two cars both produce 150 pound/feet of torque, one at 3000RPM and one at 7000RPM the second might be better off because it can take advantage of gearing, but... won't the car that produces its 150 FT/LBS @ 3000RPM have an advantage off the line because it got all its torque early where as the other car had to wait until it hit 9000RPM?

* If two cars produce DIFFERENT amounts of torque, one 250 FT/LBS @ 3000RPM and one 150 @ 7000RPM it seems to me that the one that makes 250 will still have an advantage because not only did it produce more torque earlier, but by the time it too hits 7000 RPMs it's probably also producing at least as much torque as the other car, so it should, IMO, win in both regards, no?

you're rigth about the engine with the low-down torque being quicker off the line if they both start at the same revs, but because of the gearing (and the fact that you can probably drop the clutch out higher in the rev range with the peakier engine) you can allow the higher revving engine to hit the higher revs at the same time the torquey lower revving engine hit the low revs, or at least reduce the time it would take to rev all the way up by using different ratios than the engine with teh torque down low.

now, in comparing two different engines of obviously different displacement, it's kind of spoiling the comparison. yes, having SO much more torque down low would imply having better horsepower at equal revs to the less torquey engine at equal revs (but it probably doesn't rev out at the same RPM as the less torquey one, most likely considerably lower) and yes, would probably have the advantage in making power at all RPM in this analysis. but again, kinda spoils the comparison, like a 302 with a 1.6L Honda (both in comparable states of tune, obviously).

in your first scenario i think i see the diiference. the car making 150 at 3000 rpm has a shoter power curve. probably only 2500 to 3500 rpm. but the other one has a broad power curve something like 3500 to 8000 rpm. so it can pull at its peak torque for longer enabling it to pull ahead of the competition.

in the second scenario, i don't know. i'm not an expert either but i think the torque curve comes into play again. because of the gearing the first car's curve falls of sharply after its peak. so its probably (just guessing here) not going to be making more than the second car at 7000 maybe equal or less. so it would have to shift , which would drop it under its peak and it would have to climb into its tourque curve again allowing the second car to catch up, if there was enough track left.

i wonder where the break point is though. 280 ft/lbs? 300?

Man, I wish I had a white board. :)

The key in my comparison was that the two torque curves are identically shaped. If the shape of the curve is the same, but one is stretched horizontally (higher RPM) and compressed vertically (lower peak torque), then the comparison works.

The easiest way I can think of to explain what I mean is to put two engines in black boxes, with the only output being a drive shaft. Nothing can escape the box, except the drive shaft turning, so no sound, sight, etc.

Engine A has a max of 300 lb. feet of torque at 4k, and a redline of 5k. Engine B has a max of 150 lb. feet of torque at 8k, and a redline of 10k. Remember, identically shaped curves, just scaled differently. Inside the black box of Engine B, you attach a 2:1 gear, so that the output of the shaft is half the speed of the input to the gear. The torque is multiplied by 2 as a result of the gearing, and the RPMs are lowered by a factor of 2.

How can you tell the difference between the shafts at the output? Assuming no losses in the gearing, you can't! They would have exactly identical torque outputs at the shaft at the same RPM (of the output shaft).

Guess how the horsepower compares at those two points? It's identical!

Now, if you put both in a car, how would they drive? If the car is the same weight, and the gearing is identical except for the 2:1 gear on Engine B, they would accelerate identically. The sound would be different, and Engine B would rev more quickly. However, it would hit 8k RPM at the same time Engine A would hit 4k, and they would be making identical torque at the wheels.

I think the reason this is so hard to grasp is that for so long people have been told that "Torque rules", and that torque is what you get at low RPM, HP is what you get at high RPM. That's kinda-sorta true, but it completely misses the point.


Now, this is all an academic exercise. The main point that I think people should walk away with is that you can't judge a car by its stats! You can't say Car A has more torque/HP, so it's faster. You can't say Car C handles better than Car D because it's skidpad numbers are higher. You've got to DRIVE the dang things to see what they're about!

SORRY RICH! i forgot about your earlier post saying the torque curves were identically shaped just different in scale. :eek:
thanks for the reminder. i understand better now.

Engine A has a max of 300 lb. feet of torque at 4k, and a redline of 5k. Engine B has a max of 150 lb. feet of torque at 8k, and a redline of 10k. Remember, identically shaped curves, just scaled differently. Inside the black box of Engine B, you attach a 2:1 gear, so that the output of the shaft is half the speed of the input to the gear. The torque is multiplied by 2 as a result of the gearing, and the RPMs are lowered by a factor of 2.


That's like saying a student who attended a class half of the time will do as well on the final as a student who attended all of the classes ...if the first student gets a hold of the exam and writes half of the answers on his hand. So what?

You're taking two engines that appear to offer different amounts of power, giving the 'weaker' one an advantage the other doesn't have (but almost assuredly would in real life), telling us they are performance equals, and playing it off like it's some sort of wonderful automotive conspiracy that's been taking place right under our noses!! Sure, at higher RPMs torque may be multiplied by gearing, but to insinuate that that means high strung VTECs and rotaries are 'better' off because of it is an invalid conclusion.

...but yes, Rich, if you insist on saying so, a turtle will always be faster than a rabbit ...if the turtle has roller skates! :)

Luke.

Originally posted by karmavore
You're taking two engines that appear to offer different amounts of power, giving the 'weaker' one an advantage the other doesn't have (but almost assuredly would in real life), telling us they are performance equals, and playing it off like it's some sort of wonderful automotive conspiracy that's been taking place right under our noses!!

No conspiracy. I'm not sure where that came from. The gearing "advantage" is real, and the "stronger" engine can't be geared to get the same advantage. The key that you're missing now is that this difference in gearing is real. You wrote that the weaker engine would have this advantage in real life. It can't! The reason is that there's one gear ratio that will allow an engine at a particular RPM to power wheels that are turning at a different RPM. *This is important to understand*. Once you understand that, you can clearly see why Engine B can't have the gearing "advantage" that Engine A has, and why it's not being given "an advantage the other doesn't have". That's simply false. No conspiracy, no roller skates, no nothing. Just physics.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself why, if gearing isn't real, can't the waterwheel in the link provided above and here (http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html) propel a car to any reasonable speed, even though it's got 2600 lb. feet of torque? It simply rotates way too slowly. Gear it so that it can get to 60 mph in a car and it's got 43 lb. feet of torque! That's 6 HP!

One last example that will possibly help to explain. Here's what I wrote in the other forum, very slightly modified to match the hypothetical engines in this thread:

12 RPM at the wheels is approx. 1 mph in a car (I took this from the web site I cited. If wrong it just changes the final number, not the comparison).
Let's say both cars are geared so that max torque is available at 40 mph in 2nd gear.
That's 480 RPM at the drive wheels.
Engine 1: 150 lb ft. of torque at 8,000 RPM
Engine 2: 300 lb. ft. of torque at 4,000 RPM
Engine 1 is geared (this is just derived from the 3 above points) so that:
150 lb. ft. * (8,000/480) = 2500 lb. ft. at the drive wheels
Engine 2 is geared so that:
300 lb. ft. * (4000/480) = 2500 lb. ft. at the drive wheels

Keep in mind, this gear ratio is the ratio that MUST be to get an engine at that RPM to power wheels that are spinning at a rate that will move a car 40 MPH. There's only one gear ratio that does that, given the engine RPM and wheel radius! You can see that because it's not just made up, and nowhere did I arbitrarily give the "weaker" engine an advantage. It's just the physics of the situation.

The engine with lower torque at higher RPM gets the same amount of power to the drive wheels despite being "weaker", because it can take advantage of *gearing*.

The gearing advantage is real. If my explination has failed to convince you, maybe that link I provided above will.

Last, I'm not trying to say that high strung rotaties and VTECs are better in any way! Please don't put words in my mouth. I actually just test drove an S2000, and hated the lack to torque until it got to 6k. I understand the physics involved that explain how they get a very low torque engine (143 lb. feet, 2.0 liters) to propel a car to 60 in under 6 seconds. However, I didn't like how it handled at the limit, and didn't enjoy its performance off the line either. I think the thing I've been strongest in advocating is exactly the opposite of what you said I was implying. Drive the dang cars and leave this information at home. If you don't like high strung VTECs (I don't), don't but an RSX or S2k! If you don't like revving a rotaty to 9 grand, don't buy an RX-8!
The only point I ever tried to make other than that is that you can't simply say the RX-8 has no torque without understanding the issue of how RPM and gearing play into the picture. I know this is tough stuff for most people to understand (I was a physics tutor in college), so I've tried to be as clear as possible. If I've failed to make it clear, I take full blame. However, if you've still got questions, I'll try to help clear them up if anyone's read this far.

*Edit for spelling error and clarity*

I think i got it:rolleyes: I hope it work.:D

I just wanted to say I love the level of education on here. I was sure the rx-8 board was going to be full of idiots with half the posts about lack of torque. Now I can see that there are some clued up people. Cool :cool: :cool:

well, some of us (read that as me) only have half a clue, but we're learning:cool:

Thanks for the explanation Rich. I hope people are starting to understand the hp/torque/rpm relationship. I think your best point is that people that have doubt about rotary powered cars should go drive one. It's not for everyone, especially if you are in love with muscle cars. But, if you are like most of us here who really love rotary powered cars you will become a rotor-head too.

Couldnt agree more - you have to drive one to understand. My brothers SR20DE powered pulsar has the same redline as mine and is generally regarded as one of the best 4 cylinders ever made. But I hate to rev the car. Once a piston engine gets to the top end the valvetrain noise/shudder becomes disconcerting - you feel like you should change gears. The rotary has no valvetrain and thus no mechanical feedback that says "this is getting harsh - better change gears". In fact that is why all rotaries since the first Cosmo 110s had redline buzzers, because you can't "feel" the RPM.

Ask a rotary driver how many times they've smacked into the limiter or heard the buzzer go off and thought "damn I wasnt ready to shift yet.."

Originally posted by rpm_pwr
Ask a rotary driver how many times they've smacked into the limiter or heard the buzzer go off and thought "damn I wasnt ready to shift yet.."
My answer: I hear the buzzer just about every time have to shift. ;)

Although I have run into a couple of folks who didn't know they had one until I told them to try to run it up there once. A couple of original owners too even. :confused:

yeah there's always a few. I've heard of people complaining the 2nd turbo doesnt work but it's just that carbon buildup has left the actuator a bit sticky. Some people buy cars purely for looks :rolleyes: I have my limiter set to 7250rpm so the buzzer means my car has turned into a flamethrower :D

Bob Hall, one of the fathers of the Miata always answers this way when asked about the Miata needing more horsepower:

If you can't go fast with 90hp, 900 hp won't help you.

The RX-8 will be plenty fast enough for me!


Bill

But I hate to rev the car. Once a piston engine gets to the top end the valvetrain noise/shudder becomes disconcerting - you feel like you should change gears. The rotary has no valvetrain and thus no mechanical feedback that says "this is getting harsh - better change gears". In fact that is why all rotaries since the first Cosmo 110s had redline buzzers, because you can't "feel" the RPM.

Exactly! No valve-train thrashing and a good description there, guy. To those interested in the RX-8, take heed. The power curve feels like no other car. It will rev 'til it blows or is fuel-limited by the ECU. That's why it is so addicting. Like a Timex, it keeps going and going..... Rotaries rock! :D

well as for the s2000 which is a good comparsion man this thing is fast with 142 pound feet of torque it does good time i seen
some sc issue they have recored zero to sixty in 5.3,5.4
as for the rx8 which have a 10 hp advantage and a bit more torque is should as fast.I have a spec v which has 180 pound of torque boy let me tell you it a blast the thing peel out 1 2 and third
but is no good if you dont have top end horse power



:( :(

remember boys and girls- it's not how fast your car will go, it's how fast you are willing to go in your car!:cool:

That depends on the time and place. ;)

I once had a kid with a 1st gen 12A RX-7 e-mailing me bragging about the NSX and new Celica he wasted. Not to mention the TT Supra. :rolleyes: He claimed that they were not willing to go fast enough to win. D@mn punk street racers. :( Maybe the guy with the NSX values his car, his life and the lives of others enough to not have to exceed the top end of a stock 12A RX-7 to prove he is a better driver, or his car can go faster. :D To this kid it was all about balls, not power or skill... :rolleyes:

Hey, I just wandered over - nice site. Yall have some good discussion here. Just wanted to add a couple of coals to the fire. First, expanding on what Babylou was saying about backpressure, some useful info (http://www.eclipseforums.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23521) at the bottom of the first post (hell, it's all useful).
Second, something I haven't seen mentioned about the comparison between a the low torque engine with short gearing and high torque engine with long gearing is that if the comparitive ratios are 2:1 respectively, the low torque vehicle will be shifting twice as often, negating the speed advantage but upping the fun advantage. Of course, not everyone likes shifting all the time. Luckily, since the RX8 torque peaks so early, it won't have the problem the new Celly has of redlining and shifting into non-VVTI territory. I haven't driven one, but I can't imagine many more frustrating sensations.
VRRROOOOOMMM -shift- vrrr
Enjoy the club while it's small and yall know eachother!

Sorry, I forgot sumthin and can't edit my post. The account must be too new. Anyways, my only other point is that in no way can heat be justified in a turbocharged engine. The focus of much of turbo designer Corky Bell's book Maximum Boost is how to avoid heat buildup. Heat is the main enemy of all turbocharged systems, the last gen RX7 especially!

"Exactly! No valve-train thrashing and a good description there, guy. To those interested in the RX-8, take heed. The power curve feels like no other car. It will rev 'til it blows or is fuel-limited by the ECU. That's why it is so addicting. Like a Timex, it keeps going and going..... Rotaries rock! "-ToadMan

....THAT WAS WELL SAID!..thats the exact reason i loved the rx-7:D

Originally posted by Fiend
something I haven't seen mentioned about the comparison between a the low torque engine with short gearing and high torque engine with long gearing is that if the comparitive ratios are 2:1 respectively, the low torque vehicle will be shifting twice as often, negating the speed advantage but upping the fun advantage

actually, they will shift at the same time.

if we continue to use the 2:1 ratio, when the low torque engine reaches 9000 rpm, the 2:1 gearing will effectively reduce that rpm to 4500rpm. (therefore doubling the torque)

to compare, when the other engine reaches 4500 rpm, with a 1:1 gearing it will be rotating at 4500rpm. therefore shifting at the same time.

Note: i'm tired, and I hope that made sense.

Thats very interesting information, thanks.

The moment has kind of passed, but for the 89-91 RX7 NA's, a certain amount of backpressure was necessary (if memory serves) to activate the 6-port actuators. Also, restriction creates velocity, so there is a balance to be had between a free-flowing (or wafting) exhaust stream, and one with some velocity. For cars that rely on backpressure effects to perform other functions (as in the above example), you have to be careful also.

The back pressure for the 6PI you are speaking of is fed back through a tube in the exhaust. It is not exhaust back pressure as such, it is exhaust pressure fed back through the tube. :)

My understanding of the matter is that there is no performance use for backpressure. It is simply a byproduct of having restrictions on the exhaust, like emissions controls and mufflers...

That is true about the tube. I had forgotten about that. I've been rotor-less for almost 3 years, gettin a bit rusty. :(

Originally posted by SpreeGuy


actually, they will shift at the same time.

if we continue to use the 2:1 ratio, when the low torque engine reaches 9000 rpm, the 2:1 gearing will effectively reduce that rpm to 4500rpm. (therefore doubling the torque)

to compare, when the other engine reaches 4500 rpm, with a 1:1 gearing it will be rotating at 4500rpm. therefore shifting at the same time.


I thought it worked the other way around? I thought that a 2:1 relative gear ratio would double power but also comparitive revs (ie a 1:1 ratio produces 150 lb/ft but revs to 40 in first for example while a 2:1 ratio produces 300 lb/ft and redlines at 20). If it was the way you were saying, wouldn't that be free power, and everyone would use the shortest possible gears? I don't think the accounting department will pass that.

man i hope rich doesn't see this. everybody go back and look at rich's posts about the gearing. there is a few links to articles that will explain alot.

Originally posted by Fiend


I thought it worked the other way around? I thought that a 2:1 relative gear ratio would double power but also comparitive revs (ie a 1:1 ratio produces 150 lb/ft but revs to 40 in first for example while a 2:1 ratio produces 300 lb/ft and redlines at 20). If it was the way you were saying, wouldn't that be free power, and everyone would use the shortest possible gears? I don't think the accounting department will pass that.

that's true, IF both cars had the SAME redline.

lets assume both cars ran the same gearing. 1:1.

when the high torque car reaches redline (4500rpm) the car will be at 40

when the low torque car reaches redline (9000rpm) the car will be at 80, but because we put a 2:1 gear on the car it will actually be at 40.

therefore both cars shift at the same time.

Got it now. :) I didn't understand your examples had different redlines-I thought the only difference was torque output and peak.

I don't understand any of this torque stuff!! someone please explain it to me clearer:mad:

(just kidding) :rolleyes:

I'm horrible...

You guys are killin me. I have been a long time rotary owner, and have a passion for the motor.
You guys want torque like a 350Z, then you need to buy a car with a comparible sized motor. Where talking about a 1.3 Liter here. its 63% smaller than the 350Z's 3.5. It puts out 192 horsepower per liter! The last N/A rotary was rated at 160 horsepower which is 90 horsepower less than the RX8. I commend Mazda for such a feat, 90 horsepower out of the same sized motor without using forced induction. What I am trying to say is Rotarys are very small engines that put out monstrous horsepower figures(based on size) but are not torquers. I love rotaries not because of thier torque, but the horsepower they can deliver, and the passion of Mazda engineers. They know how it all started, and they wont let Fart ruin their passion. What other company's engineers would use their offtime to develop a car. If you have never driven a rotary powered car before, and want to race, then your are going to have to redline it. And yes, those buzzers are there for a reason, shift soon;)

Thank you for letting me get that out.:rolleyes:

Rotaries are definately smaller than piston engines, but what do yall rotorheads have to say about the idea that their size is way underrated? I've heard it said and written but not with proof or details.

What proof are you looking for? The fact that the 787B won the Le Mans in 1991? The fact that the Rotary engine has a 67% success rate at finishing the Le Mans races? No other Manufacturer can boast such credibility. Except for Honda, but they only had 3 cars race. I also have a 1985 RX-7 with 120K miles on it, not ONE problem! I am sure there are plenty of other real world situation that prove the credibility of the rotary engine. Many of other people here can share their ideas too.

I think you missed it n22lasing. ;)

I agree with Fiend. The size of the rotary and the power and simplicity thereof is terribly underrated. After explaining the rotary to the previously unenlightened, I often get the response "I wonder why all cars don't have these?"...

People need to stop underestimating and underrating the rotary. And that's all I have to say about that.

:D

Aw man! I get it now :p

NOTA V6

The reason why more cars aren't rotarys is the same reason more cameras aren't polaroid, Patents, Patents and more patents.

Patents eventually run out but by that time the patent holder has made more improvements to thier tech so it doesn't make sense to compete with them.

Actually several other auto manufacturers have had the rights to develop their own rotaries over the years. The '70 gas crunch effectively ended all efforts in the US market. ;) The rotary has only been in automotive use since the '60s, so relative to the piston engine, it is still a young engine developmentally speaking.

http://www.monito.com/wankel/history.html
http://www.monito.com/wankel/manufacturers.html
http://www.monito.com/wankel/motorcycles.html
http://www.monito.com/wankel/vehicles.html
http://mrmazda.members.atlantic.net/link_car.html (at the top)

So it's more bad timing and planning than copyrights and development IMHO.

BTW, that was the response I'd get after explaining things, not my own question. :D