Hi guys;

This question is for those who have had a chance to drive the RX-8.

When you start the car, WITHOUT reving up and dropping the clutch at first, let the car gets to 5 mph, and then step on the gas. From this point on, to get to 60:

1) Is the acceleration linear?
2) What other car would be similar to?
3) At what rpm do you notice the surge building up?

I like to get a feel for the car as I would be driving it in a normal day-to-day driving when you're not drag racing, but like to have a nice acceleration.

Thank you in advance!

I think the RX-8's acceleration with just the driver probably compares to a Honda S2000 with a 150-175 lb passenger riding shotgun. Surge starts at 6,000, just like the Honda.

The cars are very similar in their power delivery, peak power and torque and curb weights. Testing shows the S2000 to be a mite faster, hence the need for the passenger to bring parity. Big advatage to the RX-8 is that it will not sound like the engine is self-destructing when you go over 7,000 rpms. The S2000 is cacophanous up there.

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

"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."

I promised I wouldn't post here again but certain things need to be brought to light. From Car and Drivers impression the RX8 feels slower than its numbers suggest. An 8000 RPM launch was used to generate those numbers. Who's going to do that all the time? Redline launches were not needed to post the Best 0-60 times for the G35. The main culprit is the lack of low-end and midrange torque. High RPMs are needed to bring the best out of the RX8. This may or may not be a good thing depending on how you drive. If you are looking for thrust in the low to mid rev ranges then the RX8 might not be for you. During normal driving the RX8 will not feel as fast as the G35, 330i, 350z, WRX. Now let me hide.



Past thread discussing the RX-8's driveability (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3359&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

'The secret to ignoring the Spoonie is that there IS no Spoonie.'
The Matrix (kinda)

On track, RX8 would probably beat them all. Afterall it looks better than all of those cars too.

Why would anyone have a problem with Spoonie? His posts seem to be reasonable and well thought out.

Yeah, the T issue has been beat to death. I know. But a lot of people probably like the RX-8 but are holding back because they think it needs a bit more grunt. So what? Let them participate and don't give them a hard time. They will be the RX-7 and Mazdaspeed RX-8 owners of the future.

Herc would not buy a G35 because he thinks the plastic is too cheap. I bought a G35 because though I also think the plastic could use upgrading, I think the strong points of the car far outweigh this quibble. It's all what is important to YOU.

There is nothing wrong with saying the RX-8 has some shortcomings. In fact, it is DESIREABLE to do so- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Many people like the G35, but don't think the interior is rich enough and the plastic is too cheap for their tastes, so they hesitate buying one. Guess what the G35 is getting next year? Upgraded interior. :)

I too think the RX-8 needs more low and midrange grunt. But it is not enough to keep me from buying one. YMMV.

Originally posted by Haris
On track, RX8 would probably beat them all. Afterall it looks better than all of those cars too.

The RX8 was the slowest on the track. Follow the link. A good portion of the Article is quoted there.

"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. "

This subject has been beaten to death.

I should also add that I think the RX-8 only needs a MARGINAL increase in torque, and that it should come in lower. It's fun to have a car that you can wind out and this characteristic should be kept. One of my best car buddies and my dad have commented on this. I can't wind out my G35 that often because speed climbs too high, too quickly. My Miata, I can wind out a bit and it is a blast.

I think what the RX-8 needs is enough extra torque so:

1. C&D 5-60 steet start of 6.5-6.7 sec, not 7.5

2. 0-60 in 5.9 without an 8000 rpm clutch drop- something more reasonable like 5,500-6,250.

Is this asking too much? Keep the high-revving character, but make it "feel" faster.

Spoonie;
I promised I wouldn't post here again but certain things need to be brought to light. From Car and Drivers impression the RX8 feels slower than its numbers suggest. An 8000 RPM launch was used to generate those numbers. Who's going to do that all the time? Redline launches were not needed to post the Best 0-60 times for the G35. The main culprit is the lack of low-end and midrange torque. High RPMs are needed to bring the best out of the RX8. This may or may not be a good thing depending on how you drive. If you are looking for thrust in the low to mid rev ranges then the RX8 might not be for you. During normal driving the RX8 will not feel as fast as the G35, 330i, 350z, WRX. Now let me hide.
I appreciate your comment and the quote. I think C&D had done the testing I was asking (5 to 60). In day-to-day driving, sometimes you get caught in a situation that there is no time to build the RPM. A setp on a gas is all the time time you got to get out of a tide bind.

Thanks!

The variable induction changes occur at:
3750 second intake port opens
6250 tertiary (power) port comes online
7250 variable resonance + 'ram air' variable fresh air duct

flat torque + increasing rpms = linear power

Originally posted by MikeW
flat torque + increasing rpms = linear power

At the lower REV ranges there is simply not enough torque to provide really good thrust. Even though the delivery is linear, there is simply not enough torque to make a seat in the pant's difference. I'm sure a Geo metro has "linear power", you get my point?

I really didn't think I was going to see a discussion like this on this board because I always thought the rx8 community was better then those gay people who street race 24/7 and brag about it. Anyways if you are talking about beating a camry or what ever car in a street race as long as your not at a light and your going a decent speed you won't be too far off from the powerband to punch it, throw in a curve on the street and the other car is gone. Yes i understand people want more torque for the car and yes i agree with that statement, but that doesn't mean you should base the car. All that tells you is its not the car for you, if you don't want a s2k like high reving car then don't buy one. I read spoonies post about reving not being good for the engine, the car just like the s2k are built to rev. Why would they give a car a 9k redline if it wasn't suppose to be reved? The car is not going to break down bcuz you rev it hard.

Originally posted by Spoonie


The RX8 was the slowest on the track. Follow the link. A good portion of the Article is quoted there.

"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. "

This subject has been beaten to death.

Slower by how much? You seem to look at a half filled glass and see that its half empty. Look at it another way, the handling was able to make up for the hp and huge torque deficit. The RX-8 was only slower than the G35c by 0.1s. I agree with Don that the RX-8 should need a bit more torque, but right now it is good enough for me (heck the car will move right?). On the road (not freeway) I agree it will prob not feel faster than competitors.

I really didn't think I was going to see a discussion like this on this board because I always thought the rx8 community was better then those gay people who street race 24/7 and brag about it. Anyways if you are talking about beating a camry or what ever car in a street race as long as your...

Boy, I always find myself straddling the diehard RX-8 lovers and the people who think the lack of torque is too much for them to accept. Just because you want the car to be more responsive down low doesn't mean you are a homosexual or a street racer.

I like the RX-8 enough to plop $30k down on it. I also agree with Spoonie and the "Torque Trolls" that it should be able to accelerate away from a Camry effortlessly. If you are spending $30k on what Mazda calls a sports car and putting up with less than 20mpg (I am betting this is the RX-8s real-world figure) it should feel effortlessly faster than a family sedan. I doubt he is picking street races with Camrys. Do you really think he is? Listen to what he is saying throughout his posts- he just wants a car that feels fast in everyday driving without revving it past 7,000 rpm all the time, killing fuel economy and yes, probably long-term durability. More rpms=more friction over time and more wear. Simple physics, no getting around it.

People compare the RX-8 to the S2000 and say that because it is like the S2000, it must be great. Have you already forgotten the articles about the S2000 that say it isn't the greatest stop-and-go daily driver because it is kind of weak down low?

Everyone bashes the Torque Trolls, but IMHO the people on here are too sensitive about it in their defense of the RX-8. The Torque Trolls have a legitimate point. They won't buy the RX-8, but we will. They "get it" about the car- it's just not for them in its current form. Let them post and let's keep the mood civil.

Originally posted by AsianStyle
I really didn't think I was going to see a discussion like this on this board because I always thought the rx8 community was better then those gay people who street race 24/7 and brag about it. Anyways if you are talking about beating a camry or what ever car in a street race as long as your not at a light and your going a decent speed you won't be too far off from the powerband to punch it, throw in a curve on the street and the other car is gone. Yes i understand people want more torque for the car and yes i agree with that statement, but that doesn't mean you should base the car. All that tells you is its not the car for you, if you don't want a s2k like high reving car then don't buy one. I read spoonies post about reving not being good for the engine, the car just like the s2k are built to rev. Why would they give a car a 9k redline if it wasn't suppose to be reved? The car is not going to break down bcuz you rev it hard.

This isn't even the first such discussion. We tend to get influxes of such discussions whenever new information about the RX-8 comes out. It's always the same thing over and over again. What we try to tell them is: YES! I know the RX-8 "doesn't have torque" and I ACCEPT THAT! That is why I'm buying the car. sheesh.

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


Boy, I always find myself straddling the diehard RX-8 lovers and the people who think the lack of torque is too much for them to accept. Just because you want the car to be more responsive down low doesn't mean you are a homosexual or a street racer.

...

Everyone bashes the Torque Trolls, but IMHO the people on here are too sensitive about it in their defense of the RX-8. The Torque Trolls have a legitimate point. They won't buy the RX-8, but we will. They "get it" about the car- it's just not for them in its current form. Let them post and let's keep the mood civil.

The problem is not that the RX-8 is "not for them". Heck some peps on this forum have gotten other cars (evo, audi tt) and we don't bash them. Most on this forum from my experience do not bast "non - RX-8ers" The problem arises when you have people preaching from their pulpits like some of the "Torque Trolls" have done. Come on now, their posts are often laced with negativity that just begs for an answer. Also the fact that they only post on this one subject makes it maddening.

The difference between people who are concerned that the RX-8 doesn't have enough torque and Spoonie, however, is that he's already announced that he will not buy an RX-8 because of it. Why on earth is he still hanging around this forum, then, that is for fans and owners (future) of the RX-8 - just to keep reminding us that it doesn't have enough torque for him?

Originally posted by chenpin


Slower by how much? You seem to look at a half filled glass and see that its half empty. Look at it another way, the handling was able to make up for the hp and huge torque deficit. The RX-8 was only slower than the G35c by 0.1s. I agree with Don that the RX-8 should need a bit more torque, but right now it is good enough for me (heck the car will move right?). On the road (not freeway) I agree it will prob not feel faster than competitors.

Excellent point - Spoonie used this very selective quote before, and still wouldn't respond to the challenge at that time - so it's less than a second slower around a road course than a Mustang with a 110 hp advantage? I'd say that's far more a knock against the Mustang than against the RX-8. He also conveniently ignores that fact that Car and Driver chose the RX-8 as the winner of the comparison test on overall merit, all performance categories considered. Obviously they are not blinkered and blinded by the lesser torque rating on the spec sheet!

With respect to S2000 comparisons - the RX-8 torque peak occurs 2000 rpm lower than the S2K - it should be significantly less peaky and less gutless at midrange revs than an S2K.

Regards,
Gordon

I guess my own take on Spoonie is he likes the RX-8 but the low-end power is a poison pill for him. If you want to see some REAL cross-vehicle bashing, check out the BMW drivers at the G35 forum on Freshalloy... now THOSE boys have some serious issues!

If the torque bothers you that much then don't get the car? wtf is there to talk about? The car isn't for you if you don't want to rev it?

Originally posted by AsianStyle
If the torque bothers you that much then don't get the car? wtf is there to talk about? The car isn't for you if you don't want to rev it?

Wow, don't take it so personal. I like revving cars. I just feel that I should not have to Rev the heck out of the car just to keep up with traffic. I love revs; high revs shouldn't be a requirement for daily driving. Tone it down please. Someone asked a question and I gave them an honest unbiased answer. Something you and a lot of other folks seem to be incapable of.

If the RX8 had more torque, I would have a deposit down already.
The Mazdaspeed RX8 will probably be my next car. Peace

Im sorry if I came off harsh I just dont see the reason for these comparisons because the car is made to rev thats the kind of car it is. I already agreed with you that it would be nice if it had more torque just saying if you take away the reving then its not the same car and you should be thinking of other cars not the rx-8

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


Just because you want the car to be more responsive down low doesn't mean you are a homosexual or a street racer.



Thank you. I didn't even plan on responding to that post.

Seems like the mention of the word "TORQUE" automaticly label you as a hater on this forum. Browsing through recent postings, we have all these die-harfd RX8 fans claiming "Please don't add supercharger or turbo" or "The RX8 is perfect and we don't need any more power or torque." Pleeeeze people, the car is not even out yet, no one has driven a production vehicle. and we are already saying it doesn't need improvement? So what's going to happen 2 years from now when a supercharged RX8 gets here? No one's going to buy it because it has 'unneccessary excess torque'?

I think many here are way too sensitive to the mention of torque since it's the only obvious weakness the RX8 has performance wise. Just accept it and move on. Give Mazda your input and hope the Renesis will gain more torque the next year or so. There is always room for improvement. Calling people torque trolls or claiming a car that's not even out as near perfection is both unrealistic and ignorant. The RX8 is an awesome car, it has its flaws, but it also has many advantages. Fixing the flaws will only make the car better.

A SPORT CAR that gets 20mpg should be able to out-accelerate automatic grocery getters without having to rev the engine and sound like a boy racer. Calling Spoonie a troll is just ignorant, because he's pointing out a valid issue with this car. To a certain extend, none of you here can claim you are 100% sure you will own a RX8 because the money is still in the bank. There are no RX8 owners on this forum at the moment, only car enthusiasts who are driving anything but the RX8. If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car."

My G35C might not have the best center console material, but I like it just fine. When people tell me "I heard the interior is cheap" I just tell them "It could be better, and they will make it better soon." I wouldn't get mad at them calling them trolls because obviously they have no idea what they are talking about. It's true the painted silver composite is not as 'high class' as walnut wood trim, but hey~ I'd rather the money I paid was spent on the engine/tranny/suspension/tires rather than a piece of wood.

The RX8 is a very promising car that no one has driven in. None here have driven the car (maybe a couple of people) and no one here owns one yet. So let's just keep an open mind and be more tolerate to other opinions. There is no point in insulting people over a valid issue in a vehicle you don't own yet.

Originally posted by AsianStyle
Im sorry if I came off harsh I just dont see the reason for these comparisons because the car is made to rev thats the kind of car it is. I already agreed with you that it would be nice if it had more torque just saying if you take away the reving then its not the same car and you should be thinking of other cars not the rx-8


Apology accepted. High revs and decent low-end power are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a High Revving car that has decent low end power. The BMW M3 and Ferrari 360 come to mind. But those cars are in a different price point. I guess Mazda has done the best it can do at the RX-8's price point. A more powerful version will probably cost much, much more $$.

Ok, I'm going to steer this thread back on track.... all replys below this one better be about what the acceleration compares to. Find another thread to talk about torque.

So, IMHO, the RX-8's acceleration is most like a tuned 2nd gen Non-turbo RX-7. So, if you can find one with headers, a streetport, and other performance goodies, it will give you a taste of the RX-8.

In terms of suspension, I would say it is BMWesq, but a little more road feel (ie, less luxo ride)

yes, how about less bickering, and listening to the people that HAVE DRIVEN the car, eh??

Originally posted by wakeech
yes, how about less bickering, and listening to the people that HAVE DRIVEN the car, eh??

Like Car and Driver?

Originally posted by Spoonie


Like Car and Driver?

no like Dan(rotarynews.com) ! who is one of the few people who have driven(at laguna seca) it that we can actually talk to.

Originally posted by zoom44


no like Dan(rotarynews.com) ! who is one of the few people who have driven(at laguna seca) it that we can actually talk to.

I'm looking for unbaised opinions. Not to say that Dan is biased. But the name "rotarynews.com" speaks for itself.

so dan were you able to feel it when it kicked in @7000 rpm like the vtec kicking in on the s2000?

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car."

Originally posted by chenpin
It's always the same thing over and over again. What we try to tell them is: YES! I know the RX-8 "doesn't have torque" and I ACCEPT THAT! That is why I'm buying the car. sheesh.

Originally posted by chenpin
I agree with Don that the RX-8 should need a bit more torque, but right now it is good enough for me (heck the car will move right?). On the road (not freeway) I agree it will prob not feel faster than competitors.

Um, you were saying something about openmindedness....:p

Originally posted by BenHayat

1) Is the acceleration linear?
2) What other car would be similar to?
3) At what rpm do you notice the surge building up?
Sorry, let me answer your 3 questions in order (like I did above)

1. Acceleration in linear. It just keeps on going up until rev-limit. It keeps going and going, with no noticable dip until just around 9000rpm.

2. It is similar to a 2nd gen RX-7... on blow. The RX-8 is a delight if you've ever ownen or driven (and liked) a non-turbo RX-7, of any generation. We noticed no transitions on normal driving. It was sweet and smooth all the way up the rev range.

3. Cruising, below 3500 rpm, it takes a while for it to get into the sweet spot.. about 4500 on up.

Originally posted by rotarynews.com

3. Cruising, below 3500 rpm, it takes a while for it to get into the sweet spot.. about 4500 on up.

*blip* :cool:
*shift*
*smile* :D

Originally posted by wakeech


*blip* :cool:
*shift*
*smile* :D

Yes. "row the gear box"

I suppose that is another thing about driving the car, the gear box feels nothing like any previous RX-7.

It is very refined.
The gates are defined,
your shifts go quickly inline.
:)

My 2nd had a short shifter in it, as well as my current 3rd gen. They are n-o-t-c-h-y. Not so with the 8.

The clutch was not heavy, in fact I don't even remember using it (a sign that it wasn't a problem)

The RX8 was the slowest on the track. Let's get full disclosure on this from the C&D mag itself (not the website):

Road Course laptime:

Mustang.....1:19.83/51.9mph
G35...........1:20.51/51.4
RX-8..........1:20.61/51.4

The difference is less than a second, or .98% slower. (Yes, that's less than 1%)

Other important items to sports car fans:

300 ft skidpad:

Mustang .85g
G35 .86g
RX-8 .91g (7% better)

emergency lane change maneuver:

Mustang.....66.9mph
G35..........70.6
RX-8.........72.4 (8% faster)

This slightly off center info is provided because the people at Mazda believe that driving around obstacles is more important than accelerating really fast toward them without shifting gears...or so it appears.

Well, I've owned two N/A RX-7's one '84 with a slightly modified 12A engine and one '86 GXL with a stock 13B engine. Those are the fastest cars I've ever driven and those are the cars that'll remain in my memory forever. So I'm absolutely positive that I'll be more than satisfied with the RX-8's performance. Just fyi I lost the first gen in a crash (totalled but it wasn't my fault) and the second one just caught on fire by itself. :eek: :confused:

Originally posted by ggreen29
...The difference is less than a second, or .98% slower. (Yes, that's less than 1%)



and as many people wiser than me have pointed out, that could be made up with tires. it is well known that the oem tires on the g35c are better than on the 350z, so they are probably(i'm not a tire man) better than the RE040s on the rx-8.

thanks ggreen29 for the full story.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Pleeeeze people, the car is not even out yet, no one has driven a production vehicle. and we are already saying it doesn't need improvement?

Calling people torque trolls or claiming a car that's not even out as near perfection is both unrealistic and ignorant. The RX8 is an awesome car, it has its flaws, but it also has many advantages. Fixing the flaws will only make the car better.

Calling Spoonie a troll is just ignorant, because he's pointing out a valid issue with this car. To a certain extend, none of you here can claim you are 100% sure you will own a RX8 because the money is still in the bank. There are no RX8 owners on this forum at the moment, only car enthusiasts who are driving anything but the RX8. If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car."

The RX8 is a very promising car that no one has driven in. None here have driven the car (maybe a couple of people) and no one here owns one yet. So let's just keep an open mind and be more tolerate to other opinions. There is no point in insulting people over a valid issue in a vehicle you don't own yet.

Excellent points - and they apply equally well, if not more so, to Spoonie and the other lack-of-torque proclaimers (for want of a better word than 'trolls').

Pleeeeze people, the car is not even out yet, no one has driven a production vehicle. and we are already saying it desperately needs improvement? Claiming a car that's not even out as needing improvement is both unrealistic and ignorant. Just how was this lack of torque determined? By the fact that is's less than one second slower on a road course than a car with nearly 50% more horsepower??!!

none of you here can claim you are 100% sure you will not own a RX8 - except, it seems, Spoonie. There are no RX8 owners on this forum at the moment, only car enthusiasts who are driving anything but the RX8. If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car." Of course, since they haven't even driven the vehicle that was declared the winner in the comparison test, just how on earth can they be so absolutely certain that the torque will be insufficient? It's completely ludicrous to make such absolute determinations without having driven the vehicle. There are plenty of people with an open mind who have refundable deposits on the RX-8 and who will drive it themselves to see if the torque is adequate by personal experience. Not our Spoonie - he knows already. :rolleyes:

Spoonie, expand your horizons - consider the comparison test of the RX-8 and Nissan 350Z in the March 2003 issue of CAR (one of the leading British automotive magazines. Here's a couple of direct quotes for the debate:
(RX-8) Good low-down torque becomes a strong (if less than exponential) top end.
(350Z)The Nissan's 287 bhp 3.5-litre V-6 engine lacks much in the way of low-down torque, and tall gearing makes the motor work hard for serious progress.

So who's right - Car and Driver or CAR? Oh dear, Spoonie's gospel (which he selectively chooses, rigorously ignoring the sum of the verse deciding that the RX-8 is the best car of the three) has been challenged. Is it lacking torque or does it have good low-down torque? Not willing to actually experience the car and decide for himself, Spoonie is now in a philosophical conundrum that will have him doing about-faces until he spins into a black hole. ;)

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by DonG35Miata
I guess my own take on Spoonie is he likes the RX-8 but the low-end power is a poison pill for him. If you want to see some REAL cross-vehicle bashing, check out the BMW drivers at the G35 forum on Freshalloy... now THOSE boys have some serious issues!

Don,

Can you please post some links to such threads ???

Originally posted by Spoonie

I just feel that I should not have to Rev the heck out of the car just to keep up with traffic.

Hi Spoonie,

One suggestion for you...i mean seriously: please wait until you 'actually' test drive the RX-8 to see if it keeps up with traffic or not.

I currently drive a family sedan with "ONLY" 130 lb-ft torque and I have absolutely no problem keeping up with traffic. Its an automatic transmission and I dont even rev it hard to pass most of the traffic...just 3k-4k rpm max.

Originally posted by Maximus


Don,

Can you please post some links to such threads ???

Well, the most disturbed BMW owner on their went by the name "UnleasHell". When the G35 was beating the 330i in the R&T and MT comparisons he felt the need to visit the board and bash the G35. I kept refuting him and he sent me a private message- the ****s are my edits, here's a taste:

Unleashell's PM to Don (http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB25&Number=267741&Forum=All_Forums&Words=DonG35Pittsburgh&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=1year&Main=267741&Search=true#Post267741)

Just do a search there under his username and you'l see more of him. He's the most whacked of them by far but the other guys felt a constant need to visit the board and defend their BMWs.

Let's be thankful Spoonie is the worst we have here!

Originally posted by Maximus


Don,

Can you please post some links to such threads ???

Well, the most disturbed BMW owner on there went by the name "UnleasHell". When the G35 was beating the 330i in the R&T and MT comparisons he felt the need to visit the board and bash the G35. I kept refuting him and he sent me a private message- the ****s are my edits, here's a taste:

Unleashell's PM to Don (http://forums.freshalloy.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB25&Number=267741&Forum=All_Forums&Words=DonG35Pittsburgh&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=1year&Main=267741&Search=true#Post267741)

Just do a search there under his username and you'l see more of him. He's the most whacked of them by far but the other guys felt a constant need to visit the board and defend their BMWs.

Let's be thankful Spoonie is the worst we have here!

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


Let's be thankful Spoonie is the worst we have here!

PS Spoonie, no offense, I like your posts!

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Seems like the mention of the word "TORQUE" automaticly label you as a hater on this forum. Browsing through recent postings, we have all these die-harfd RX8 fans claiming "Please don't add supercharger or turbo" or "The RX8 is perfect and we don't need any more power or torque." Pleeeeze people, the car is not even out yet, no one has driven a production vehicle. and we are already saying it doesn't need improvement? So what's going to happen 2 years from now when a supercharged RX8 gets here? No one's going to buy it because it has 'unneccessary excess torque'?

I think many here are way too sensitive to the mention of torque since it's the only obvious weakness the RX8 has performance wise. Just accept it and move on. Give Mazda your input and hope the Renesis will gain more torque the next year or so. There is always room for improvement. Calling people torque trolls or claiming a car that's not even out as near perfection is both unrealistic and ignorant. The RX8 is an awesome car, it has its flaws, but it also has many advantages. Fixing the flaws will only make the car better.

A SPORT CAR that gets 20mpg should be able to out-accelerate automatic grocery getters without having to rev the engine and sound like a boy racer. Calling Spoonie a troll is just ignorant, because he's pointing out a valid issue with this car. To a certain extend, none of you here can claim you are 100% sure you will own a RX8 because the money is still in the bank. There are no RX8 owners on this forum at the moment, only car enthusiasts who are driving anything but the RX8. If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car."

My G35C might not have the best center console material, but I like it just fine. When people tell me "I heard the interior is cheap" I just tell them "It could be better, and they will make it better soon." I wouldn't get mad at them calling them trolls because obviously they have no idea what they are talking about. It's true the painted silver composite is not as 'high class' as walnut wood trim, but hey~ I'd rather the money I paid was spent on the engine/tranny/suspension/tires rather than a piece of wood.

The RX8 is a very promising car that no one has driven in. None here have driven the car (maybe a couple of people) and no one here owns one yet. So let's just keep an open mind and be more tolerate to other opinions. There is no point in insulting people over a valid issue in a vehicle you don't own yet.

This was a great reply. Look everyone here need to be a little more objective and learn to accept other peoples opinion of this car. Every car will have it's faults...and some people may consider some things faults that you might disagree with...hey who cares.

You may love the high reving nature while others may not. I learned from driving my Prelude that I never wanted a low torque car again. Notice I didn't say "not a high reving". I loved the VTEC kick but I hated the lack of torque. I wanted a sports car that could accelerate faster than the Accord at any RPM. I liked the way that a 6 or 8 has power on tap at any moment.

And those that say it will be made up in gearing...no way. The Integra GSR and Integra Type R have different gearing and different engines (25hp advantage to TypeR) and it adds up to 0.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile.

For those that don't understand what the difference will feel like(big torque vs. little torque)...drive the G35 back to back with the RX8 when it comes out. Both have nearly the same acceleration. But totally different ways of getting it.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

And those that say it will be made up in gearing...no way. The Integra GSR and Integra Type R have different gearing and different engines (25hp advantage to TypeR) and it adds up to 0.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile.


please don't be obtuse... you cannot take a specific case (such as this) and apply it widely. to properly assess the RX-8's gearing next to the G35's gearing, you need to take the AT THE WHEEL drive ratio (gearing advantage), combining that with their masses, the shift points at what speeds through acceleration (it'll help a car by a few tenths if it doesn't have to shift one more time to get to a certain speed)... because you haven't done this, and others (Buger) have, you cannot say this is fact.

try this on for size (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=931)
again, i will restate one of my seemingly unending requests that we all try using the search feature to really see what's been said.

thank you.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

And those that say it will be made up in gearing...no way. The Integra GSR and Integra Type R have different gearing and different engines (25hp advantage to TypeR) and it adds up to 0.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile.

I don't have specific data to quote but I've seen Type-R's do anywhere from 14.5 to 14.9 in the 1/4.. while the GSR is about 15.5 and up.. so it's a little more than .5 sec difference.. regardless..
I can't speak for the Rx-8 since I haven't driven it.. interestingly the Prelude has a similar amount of torque, 156 with about 120 at wheel from 2000rpm and up.. and it weighs 3000lbs. Personally speaking the only time I wish I had more torque is with 4 people in the car. Then the car does "feel" slower and I need to rev more.. but for everyday acceleration shifting at 4K rpm is more than enough.. 7500rpm redline. I would definitely wait for any reviews after a personal testdrive.. all these threads how it needs more torque are moot really..

Originally posted by DonG35Miata


PS Spoonie, no offense, I like your posts!
Thanks. I feel the love.

I really don't want to piss anyone off. Some folks in an earlier thread wanted to know why I even hang out here. May I remind everyone that this thread started out with someone asking how the RX-8 performed in relation to its competition (namely 5-60 times). All I did was answer the question by quoting what was written by people who actually driven the car and recorded the results. If that upsets people, then I guess they have other issues to deal with. I'll admit, I didn't mention that the RX-8 won the competition. But does that really change anything?

Originally posted by AsianStyle
All that tells you is its not the car for you, if you don't want a s2k like high reving car then don't buy one. I read spoonies post about reving not being good for the engine, the car just like the s2k are built to rev. Why would they give a car a 9k redline if it wasn't suppose to be reved? The car is not going to break down bcuz you rev it hard.

From a guy with linear delievery FF car:

I have a DC2 and I like to rev my car... literally everyday of my driving and hell yeah it is fun.

Peak power can be fun if you know how to use it. It makes the car goes very wild and understeer in the corner of a FF DC2. Which is good as the stock car set up so you feel like loosing back when you go into a corner. So heel tole drop a gear and cut into corner sharply and early... release the clutch and pwer down to slide out - just have enough grunt then - That is why S2K and RX8 will be so much fun for a FR. Then my drive will be perfect.

Bottom line: That bitch is born to be beaten - then hell yeah beat the hell out of it. :p

Btw...
S2K is quoted 0-100kmh for 6.7 sec... how can it be faster than RX8 - if quoted as around 6 sec??? :confused:

If RX-8 is around 7 sec then why don't I mod my DC2 :mad:

Originally posted by Spoonie
But does that really change anything?

... ahahaha... *rolleyes* look who's talking??

There have been many "Torque" threads, but the main thing I "got" from them... is that looking at the numbers and saying that "this car has less than this one" simply doesn't work with cars like the RX-8...

If you're comparing the S2000, then mabe... but with somthing like the G35 there are other factors.

Torque needs to be measured at the wheels... (assuming they are the same size)... and so if you want to get a real measure for comparison then you've gotta take the gear ratio's into account, and perhaps weight...

Also, isn't it a good thing that the car doesn't feel as fast as it really is... doesn't that mean that it's more refined and has nice linear power delivery?... Isn't that how Mazda is positioning it in markets other than the pure sportscar?? For this car to be a success (and hence for there to be more rotary models, perhaps another 7 in future) this car has to sell to people other than those dedicated to a performance car.

Sure I want the car to be quick, but I'm sure we can wait until WE can drive the car to make a judgement for ourselves...

Originally posted by BlueAdept

Torque needs to be measured at the wheels... (assuming they are the same size)... and so if you want to get a real measure for comparison then you've gotta take the gear ratio's into account, and perhaps weight...


The reason that I say you don't need to take gear ratios into account is because all of these sports cars are geared very close to eachother. All sports cars are geared to run from 0- ~150 mph. Yes having more of an aggresive gearing will give you better acceleration but it sure won't drop the 1/4 mile time more than a few tenths of a second. Do you really think that Mazda did something special to the gearing that no one else in the sports car industry knows about? the 350z/G35 and the rx8 are all 6 speeds and both going for high performance. The gear ratios chosen will be the best suited for each engines power band.

There is no way that the gearing of the RX8 will make up for the low torque. The only way to do this is to either have the RX8 have a ton more gears (12 speed) or reduce the top speed so that the range the gearing runs is from 0-100 instead of 0-150. It's not going to happen.

So...get used to the idea of down shifting to get acceleration rather than a blip of the gas pedal. It's just a different solution that the engineers at Mazda chose.

It's very similar to my '98 Prelude versus the '98 Mustang GT. The GT had the big V8 with 225 hp and 305 ft-lbs of torque and the Prelude had 200 hp and ~160 ft-lbs of torque. Both ran the 1/4 mile around the same time but the Prelude needed to be rev'ed to get that speed where the Mustang had the power on tap low in the rpms. So during normal driving you would swear that the Mustang was faster because of all the torque compared to the Prelude.

The RX8 and the G35 are very similar. They are both run very similar 1/4 miles but the G35 will feel faster during normal driving because of the torque advantage. It's not until you get above 5k in the RX8 that you'll feel the difference. The RX8 will keep accelerating (linear torque) while the G35 will drop off in acceleration (torque drops off after 5k).

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat


The reason that I say you don't need to take gear ratios into account is because all of these sports cars are geared very close to eachother.

not really... if you LOOK at the NUMBERS (especially accounting for the final drive ratio) you'll see that it's not very similar... "close" is too subjective a term to really say "they're similar because their gearing is close"

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
There is no way that the gearing of the RX8 will make up for the low torque. The only way to do this is to either have the RX8 have a ton more gears (12 speed) or reduce the top speed so that the range the gearing runs is from 0-100 instead of 0-150.

AW, don't take this personallly, but why do you persist in prolonging your ignorance?? please read the articles/posts/info i've outlined for you: you are wrong...
not only does torque count, but the rpm that amount of force is at, the rpm range of the motor, the gears in the box, the drive ratio in the diff, and the diameter of the drive wheels... not to forget the mass of the vehicle, which is another point of discrepency between the two cars you mention.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
So...get used to the idea of down shifting to get acceleration rather than a blip of the gas pedal. It's just a different solution that the engineers at Mazda chose.


yes, we are all extremely aware of this... it has ALWAYS been this way with RX cars, and it'd better always be. this is how you drive ANY car fast, torque down low or no, but because the characteristics of this car reward in such a strong fashion true, correct, and active driving so charismatically is why we like it. This is the tradeoff we want: small, light, you put in a little more, you get a little more out of it through the corners AND down the straight.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
The reason that I say you don't need to take gear ratios into account is because all of these sports cars are geared very close to eachother.


There is no way that the gearing of the RX8 will make up for the low torque. The only way to do this is to either have the RX8 have a ton more gears (12 speed) or reduce the top speed so that the range the gearing runs is from 0-100 instead of 0-150. It's not going to happen.


no words will ever seem to convince you.

rx8
Horsepower
250 @ 8,500 RPM
Torque (lbs/ft)
159 @ 5,500 RPM

Weight 3029

Final Drive Ratio
4.444

1st 3.760
2nd 2.269
3rd 1.645
4th 1.187
5th 1.000
6th .843

350z
Horsepower
287 @ 6,200 RPM
Torque (lbs/ft)
274 @ 4,800 RPM

Weight 3188 (lightest of the models)

Final Drive Ratio
3.538

M/T
1st 3.794
2nd 2.324
3rd 1.624
4th 1.271
5th 1.000
6th 0.794

not gonna bore everyone with the math, it's been done before with these numbers, buger has a thread somewhere about it.

http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=931&perpage=15&highlight=ratio&pagenumber=11
there's a good graph on there comparing the rx8 to the g35 and some renesis vs f20c curves too.

here's a good little ditty on why gearing matters
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2462&highlight=gearing


http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=19309#post19309

and one last one, http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=19309#post19309 scroll down a bit til you see 2 graphs, and that is torque applied through gearing.

by no means will an rx8 be, say, easier to drive, and sure the g35 is faster but in response to one of your comments above. what advantage would having 12 gears do the renesis? 12 gears would begin to make sense if it had a peaky narrow powerband...but that torque curve, as low as you think it is, looks pretty darn smooth to me.

I'm REALLY gonna keep this short, because if I need to explain it more I'll just link some VERY long threads on this subject, but perhaps for the new people....

Take 2 cars, 1 revs to 5000rpm, the other to 10000rpm. assume that the latter has half the torque.

Now, the first will have gears twice as high... giving the second a mechanical advantage of 2 times.... hence the torque at the wheels will be identical between the two cars, even though the torque at the engine was not.

It's a gross generalisation, but if the engine revs 50% higher, the gearing will need to be 50% lower, so the torque at the wheels will represent 50% more than the raw figure when comparing the two cars.

Now,,,, I don't want to stop the debate on this but understand that I won't be happy if it degenerates into a pissing match.....

So, please... if you are at all unsure what I'm talking about.... please read these articles/posts and decide then if you have anything to add:-

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=361&perpage=15&highlight=torque%20AND%20gearing&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by BlueAdept

It's a gross generalisation, but if the engine revs 50% higher, the gearing will need to be 50% lower, so the torque at the wheels will represent 50% more than the raw figure when comparing the two cars.


gross generalization or not, that's a good way to explain why gearing matters.

I'll keep this really short. All of the reviews have stated the one flaw in the RX8 to be the low torque. Now these are people directly comparing the 350z/G35/Cobra to the RX8. So regardless of the gearing the lack of torque is felt.

Ok now I'll end this:

Please check my math but here goes.

Let's look at the torque at the wheels in 3rd gear.

RX8-------
torque = 159 @ 5500
final drive ratio = 4.444
3rd gear is 1.645
FDR * 3rd gear = 7.31038

350z-------
torque = 274 @ 4800
final drive ratio = 3.538
3rd gear is 1.624
FDR * 3rd gear = 5.745712

So the RX8 has a 27% advantage in gearing.

Peak torque in 3rd:
RX8 = 7.31038 * 159 = 1162.35
350z = 5.745712 * 274 = 1574.32

But the Z has a 35% advantage in peak torque.

Now lets figure in weight.

a = F/m

RX8 = 1162.35 / 3029 = 0.384
350z = 1574.32 / 3188 = 0.494

At peak torque the 350z has a 28.6% T/lbs advantage.

Now if we look at the 350z dyno:
http://www.injen.com/webpages/special/350z_testing/RD1985%20average%20gain.gif

So now lets assume that the RX8 is a completely flat torque curve. We see that peak torque is 230.2 for the Z from the dyno. Now at that point it is 28.6% stronger than the RX8. So if we take 28.6% off of the 230.2 we get 164.3, this is where the RX8 torque curve/flat line is. So any point on the 350z torque curve that is above the 164.3 will be a point that the 350z feels faster. Any point below 164.3 the 350z will feel slower.

Here's a break down on RPMs:
2000-6500 rpms ---> 350 is faster (100% of 350s rpms)
6500+ -----------------> RX8 is faster (36% of RX8's rpms)

But you're right the RX8 does make up quite a bit of torque in the gearing (27%). Thus giving it the impression of closer to 200 ft-lbs of torque rather than the 159 ft-lbs (when compared to the Z). So in the end does the gearing help the low torque? yes.

But here are some of the competitors.

FDR=Final Drive Ratio

Car ----------- FDR ---------- 3rd gear ---- torque ----- T*FDR*3rd
RX8...............4.444...........1.645........... .159............1162.35
G35/350z......3.538...........1.624............274.... ........1574.32
EVO...............4.529...........1.407........... .273............1739.63
BMW 330.......3.38.............1.59..............214.. ..........1150.07
Lexus is300...3.909...........1.424............218...... .......1213.47

the RX8 seems to be on par with the BMW 330 or is300 but against the 350/G35 and EVO it's very low.

I'll leave it at that. Let me know if any of my logic is incorrect.

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
Let me know if any of my logic is incorrect.

Interesting calculations. Should the real effect of the gearing be considered - speeds in gear? For example, if I'm cruising along at 45 mph in my RX-8 in third gear and floor it, what torque is available vs. 45 mph in third gear in my 350Z?


Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
All of the reviews have stated the one flaw in the RX8 to be the low torque. Now these are people directly comparing the 350z/G35/Cobra to the RX8. So regardless of the gearing the lack of torque is felt.

I guess it's how you read between the lines. Aside from CAR magazine (which claimed that the RX-8 torque was fine but that the 350Z lacked low end torque!), magazines have commented that the RX-8's torque isn't great at lower rpms. Have they actually used the word 'flaw' or equivalent? Nope, most have not. Some might have called it a weakness, but most have just said that low-end torque isn't a strength (which doesn't automatically make it a flaw or weakness).

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat
Ok now I'll end this:

--- SNIP ---

But you're right the RX8 does make up quite a bit of torque in the gearing (27%). Thus giving it the impression of closer to 200 ft-lbs of torque rather than the 159 ft-lbs (when compared to the Z). So in the end does the gearing help the low torque? yes.


Well, I don't think any of us are actually trying to argue that it's a torque monster... but I think you'll agree that a lot of people here who are going on about "keeping up with traffic" (OMG, what are they thinking).. would be a lot happier is they saw a 200 ish number... even if it was calculated as you have done to give an impressition of the effects of gearing and the high revving engine..



--- SNIP ---

the RX8 seems to be on par with the BMW 330 or is300 but against the 350/G35 and EVO it's very low.

--- SNIP ---



Again, I don't see anyone argueing that the 330 is "Low torque"... certainly it's not as high as the 350z, but I don't think anyone would argue that it is... Mazda are trying to give the car a more refined feel, the power IS there, you just have to wind the engine up to get ALL of it... somthing that with a rotary is no hardship!

The cars definitely have different character, and people will buy the ones they like... if you're not convinced by the numbers, then get a test drive... when they arrive..

Originally posted by AbusiveWombat

I'll leave it at that. Let me know if any of my logic is incorrect.

Just dandy. I think blueadept has it right about people just not liking to see 159 ft-lb. By no means was i trying to imply that a 3 banger geo metro could be turned into a dragster with proper gearing. All I was trying to say was that just looking at the flywheel output numbers, yes these other cars are faster, but gearing does make up for some of it.

I'm annoyed in that replying to this worn out subject only perpetuates it. I apologize.

Please, for the sake of the forum, don't let this place become like some of the other piss-matching forums. To think, the damn car hasn't even been released yet! Imagine once it is...

If Mazda had somehow blessed us with, say, a 350hp, 300torque, NA rotary masterpiece, I really doubt any of these discussions would happen. Of course, there would be the possibility that the 8 would be compared to other classes of sports cars; but all the nit-picking, and splitting hairs over tenths of a second, quarter-mile-this, and on-the-track-that, all to legitimize or justify any of the 8's shortcomings will cease. If the 8 truly blew away the competition in all benchmark tests--power output, acceleration times, gearing, lateral g's, whatever--the more sensitive and touchy members of this forum wouldn't have to defend anything. Sure, I get irritated by some of the trolling comments on the boards just like anyone else, but to date, I don't think I've ever taken their bait. I have always chosen not to acknowledge their banter and remain silent in pride.

I accept the 8, and am still quite committed to purchasing one, regardless of what people may say. When I see the car, when I hear it's engine, when I imagine the ride, all I think of is that I want to own one. No other factor is a concern--that is why I'm on this forum.

Look the original post asked what the RX8's acceleration would compare to. By the numbers the acceleration most closely resembles that of a BMW 330 in the sub 6000 rpms. Above 6000 rpms it's a little harder to compare because the other cars have to shift giving the RX8 the advantage. the numbers in my previous post give a good way to judge how each of the cars feel during daily driving.

I certainly realize now that the torque issue is totaly dependant upon which cars you're comparing to. When comparing the RX8 to the 350z/G35, EVO, and Cobra...yeah this car lacks a large amount of torque. I would hardly say it's "knit picking" when dealing with +20%, +40%, and +50% (respectively) more power below 5000 rpms. Now when comparing to a BMW 330 and Lexus is300 the torque is about the same and thus not an issue.

I'll agree that the first time I saw the 159 ft-lbs I was really put off but now that I've run the numbers it's not as bad as I orignally thought. So like I said, it's all in which cars you're comparing the RX8 to.

Remember...this is a discussion forum where people ask questions and get answers. I've certainly learned a lot and I'm sure that the numbers I posted will help many people understand how much the gearing helps the RX8's torque (or any car for that matter).

The best way to keep this forum from becoming a pissing match is to back up comments with factual data. So that in the end all you can say is "yes the rx8 has less acceleration throughout the 350z's rpm range in 3rd gear". That statement is not bagging on either car. It's just a factual statement. You can take it however you want. Just be objective and take an unbaised approach.

Originally posted by BlueAdept
I'm REALLY gonna keep this short, because if I need to explain it more I'll just link some VERY long threads on this subject, but perhaps for the new people....

Take 2 cars, 1 revs to 5000rpm, the other to 10000rpm. assume that the latter has half the torque.

Now, the first will have gears twice as high... giving the second a mechanical advantage of 2 times.... hence the torque at the wheels will be identical between the two cars, even though the torque at the engine was not.

It's a gross generalisation, but if the engine revs 50% higher, the gearing will need to be 50% lower, so the torque at the wheels will represent 50% more than the raw figure when comparing the two cars.

Now,,,, I don't want to stop the debate on this but understand that I won't be happy if it degenerates into a pissing match.....

So, please... if you are at all unsure what I'm talking about.... please read these articles/posts and decide then if you have anything to add:-

http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=361&perpage=15&highlight=torque%20AND%20gearing&pagenumber=1 .

You've got a really good point. For example, the Ferrari 308 Quattrovalvole has about 10% more torque than the RX-8, about 5% less hp, and about 5% less weight. I have been lucky enough to go for a ride in one, and let me tell you, it felt pretty darn fast. Now, the statistics I mentioned do not have everything to do with acceleration, but the 308 is *roughly* comparable (in fact it's slower 0-60 than the RX-8). Being a Ferrari, it revs fairly high ... just like the RX-8. But how often do you hear "Ferraris have low torque!"? Heck, the 360 Modena has less torque than the 350z ... but it revs to 8500 rpm. Which would you rather have? (ok ok it's not that simple, the 360 costs way more, etc. etc. etc. but you get my drift). Nonetheless, what you said shows that there's a lot more to cars than just torque and horsepower, you must consider redline, weight, gearing, etc. That should put some worries (including mine :) ) to rest.

getting back to one of the 1st posts saying that the RX8 is slower on the track than the G35...i seriously dout this statement even if its coming from a magazine...RX8 is not a regular car like the g35 it needs to be reved high all the time...and i dont think the driver who drove the rx8 on the track new exactly how to drive the rx8 properly and was more used to driving the G35 styled cars...

Originally posted by RacingDynamcs
getting back to one of the 1st posts saying that the RX8 is slower on the track than the G35...i seriously dout this statement even if its coming from a magazine...RX8 is not a regular car like the g35 it needs to be reved high all the time...and i dont think the driver who drove the rx8 on the track new exactly how to drive the rx8 properly and was more used to driving the G35 styled cars...

that's not quite it... the track they were at (Willow Springs??) was clearly a horsepower track, where the SVT (with +400hp) beat out the RX-8 only by seconds... the difference between the RX-8 and the G35C was tenths or something...

thx for clearning that up because i was seriously considering that magazine test drivers need driving lessons...wooh!:D

Originally posted by RacingDynamcs
getting back to one of the 1st posts saying that the RX8 is slower on the track than the G35...i seriously dout this statement even if its coming from a magazine...RX8 is not a regular car like the g35 it needs to be reved high all the time...and i dont think the driver who drove the rx8 on the track new exactly how to drive the rx8 properly and was more used to driving the G35 styled cars... Not much to do with it actually... I think the real problem was that the high power ports weren't opening.