Today i recieved the prelude booklet as they call it in the mail. It is like a 180 page color book all about the process of making it and stuff. In the middle it had specs and it said 0-60 stick-6.6, and 0-60 automatic 9.5!!! I know i got automatic because im gonna be shleppin back and forth to college on 95 alot but i didn't think the car was gonna be that slow. ANyways does anyone know if thats true because all the magz here say 6.0 and 5.9 for stick.. If it is what kind of stuff can i do to the automatic to atleast make it move alittle bit.. DAYUM!!!!

Originally posted by adamp316
it said 0-60 stick-6.6, and 0-60 automatic 9.5!!! [...] ANyways does anyone know if thats true because all the magz here say 6.0 and 5.9 for stick.. If it is what kind of stuff can i do to the automatic to atleast make it move alittle bit.. DAYUM!!!! I'm surprised to see such a large difference, but I suspect that it's primarily due to the power delivery characteristics of the Renesis - with a manual, you can dump the clutch at 8krpm for a quick (if smokey) getaway, while a slushbox forces you to use pull away from lower revs. A high-stall converter would probably help the 1/4 mile times, but at the detriment of regular driveability.

Originally posted by adamp316
It is like a 180 page color book all about the process of making it and stuff.

A perfect description... :D

Originally posted by adamp316
Today i recieved the prelude booklet as they call it in the mail. It is like a 180 page color book all about the process of making it and stuff. In the middle it had specs and it said 0-60 stick-6.6, and 0-60 automatic 9.5!!! I know i got automatic because im gonna be shleppin back and forth to college on 95 alot but i didn't think the car was gonna be that slow. ANyways does anyone know if thats true because all the magz here say 6.0 and 5.9 for stick.. If it is what kind of stuff can i do to the automatic to atleast make it move alittle bit.. DAYUM!!!!

god damn everyones gotten their books except me.

anyways dont worry, alot of manfuctures underrate their performance numbers. like BMW, mercedes, etc. mags. got 5.9-6.2 with the manual(excluding motortrends 6.5 bullshit). with that said, auto should be around high 8's which is still pretty damn slow. but thats ur fault, shouldnt of gotten auto;)

Did anyone notice that the book also still states the 20 - 30 mpg for the rx-8 and estimates mixed driving at 23.

I haven't got the book either (but I am still at work - perhaps a surprise when I get home...).

And I feel really sorry for the automatic contingent if this is true. A 3 second deficit between auto and manual is horrendous - a 1 sec difference is more typical. In this case the engine is somewhat different and weaker for the auto but still I expected 7.5-8.0...

Let's hope that a real world test of the auto can allay your fears. East Moon - are you near a drag strip?

Originally posted by AsianStyle
Did anyone notice that the book also still states the 20 - 30 mpg for the rx-8 and estimates mixed driving at 23.

yea i noticed quite a bit of unfamiliar specs like the 0-60 times and the MPG...i'm guessing this book was developed early on and was finished before the production car was made with final specs...i'm gonna have to actually read that damn 200 page book to find out when it was actually written...

it does, however, make a GREAT coffee table book!

afd

I sure hope u guys are right i am thinking if the 250 HP is 5.8 or so i am hoping to see like a 7.5 or so for the Auto yes less HP but a bit more torque. I can live with like a 1.5-1.7 sec diff but if its in the high 8's or 9's then no matter how beatifull the car looks.
32,000 k is too much for a fully loaded civic performance type car even if i am in love with the interior.

PS this news really bummed me out i was lookin forward to gettin this car and i have to change cars in the next month or 2 cause i need to sell my VW and cant wait much longer.
Ack i dont want the Z but i might have to cope :-(

Sorry for the longish rant but i have to vent .
PLZ PLZ Mazda give us 250 hp with the Auto

JESUS!

If the auto really has a 9.5 run to 60 then my dealer can keep my car... I'll get a Z roadster instead...

Originally posted by Calibus
PLZ PLZ Mazda give us 250 hp with the Auto

Can't happen this year or next year - you'd have to wait for the new 5 spd auto or SMG that will both probably appear for the 2006 model year.

Why not get the manual? If you ever needed proof that auto transmissions suck... ;)

Regards,
Gordon

9.5 seconds? OMG, is mazda crazy? Why would they make their sports car that slow. God, even protege beats that.

The 5.9 sec 0-60 of Road and Track et. al. was generated by a 8,000 RPM clutch drop with tire smoking ect.

Mazda probably doesn't want you driving the car that way so they are being conservative with the 6.6 second estimate. Remember the 5 - 60 Mph rolling start that RX-8 did was 7.5 seconds so 6.6 is not hard to believe.

Now as far as the auto is concerned If the 9.5 seconds is true, that is hard to believe. That is also unexceptable. My 1992 85HP Toyota Tercel could do 0-60 in 10 secs.

-Mr. Wigggles

Automatics and rotaries don't mix..

I think a CVT type of dealy would have been better.

Originally posted by MrWigggles
The 5.9 sec 0-60 of Road and Track et. al. was generated by a 8,000 RPM clutch drop with tire smoking ect.

Mazda probably doesn't want you driving the car that way so they are being conservative with the 6.6 second estimate. Remember the 5 - 60 Mph rolling start that RX-8 did was 7.5 seconds so 6.6 is not hard to believe.

Now as far as the auto is concerned If the 9.5 seconds is true, that is hard to believe. That is also unexceptable. My 1992 85HP Toyota Tercel could do 0-60 in 10 secs.

-Mr. Wigggles

roadt&track used a 7500 clutch drop not 8000. car and driver used the 8000

even the new Prius is 1/2 sec. slower at most. And a new Sports suspension too! 60 mpg plus for hwy??????

Originally posted by Hercules
Automatics and rotaries don't mix..

I think a CVT type of dealy would have been better.

What do you mean they don't mix? Why does an auto tranny have such a difficult time transferring power from a rotary?

Originally posted by VWjet


What do you mean they don't mix? Why does an auto tranny have such a difficult time transferring power from a rotary? Torque. Or better said, the lack there of.

That better not be the case. If so, why should I get that if my current car is just as fast? This will just lead me more into the direction of the G35, but I guess I'll wait for the tests in the auto mags first.

If these performance stats do hold up i agree that is Pathetic
Mazda gave us a good looking car but if my current VW can outrun it with a less HP and less Torque engine, "I have the 180HP 173 Tq GTI AUTO which runs like a 8.5 to 60 and its 3200 lbs" what is the sense to spend $30+K i will either hold on to my VW which i dont want to do, or go for the G35 or 350Z though i dont like them much. Hey at this point the mazda 6S is startin to look good.
This car should run at least 7.0 to 60 with the Auto trans to be competative in this Segment. Wake Up Mazda.

Mazda just made the auto/manual decision easy for everybody. The auto is the "ladies" car -- no offense intended Elara. Somewhere in the RX-8 book it describes the difference between the auto and the manual by relating the auto to a Mercedes and the manual to an M series BMW in terms of how they were intended to appeal to the market. Mazda is obviously waiting for the more sophisticated manumatic/SMG transmission be ready for market before they bring out the high powered auto tranny. The current auto was just released to have something to fill that gap in the market for the short-term. I am amazed at how many people want the automatic :confused: but I guess there are even people who buy auto Porsches, etc. -- I just don't get it?

Originally posted by MrWigggles
My 1992 85HP Toyota Tercel could do 0-60 in 10 secs.

-Mr. Wigggles Do you frequent TERCELONLINE.COM (http://www.tercelonline.com/home.html)?;)

Originally posted by VWjet


What do you mean they don't mix? Why does an auto tranny have such a difficult time transferring power from a rotary?

the current stock of AT torque converters available to mazda in time for production were not able to handle the 9000 rpm. they just blew up.

but I guess there are even people who buy auto Porsches, etc. -- I just don't get it?

Back in '96, my father leased a Corvette, and the dealer told him at that time around 80% of the vette buyers opted for auto. AUTO ON A VETTE! I guess some people just don't want to bother with a stick shift, who knows.

I think that the book stats are a misprint. It seems to me that there shouldn't be such an outlandish difference in accleration.

To test my theory, I dusted off my trusty copy of CarTest 4.5.

Using the data from the Mazda Website on the 4AT and the 6MT, plus the data on this site for the 5MT, I programmed the variables into the program and set her loose. I used Mazda's curb weight of 3053 pounds for the MT and 3085 pounds for the AT plus 200 pounds for the driver.

Here is the result:

Thats a cool prog. Is it freeware?

Nice Program how acurate is it have u checked it against other cars that actually have hard performance numbers for them already. how close does this program come to what the magazines publish.
If the Auto is 7.3 thats fine with me i will be happy i know its not a stick but i need the car for everyday use

i think that 7.0-7.5s to 60, for me personally, would be more than adequate out of a 4AT... i mean, for everyday driving, that means you have plenty of merge power...

...but 9.5 seconds?? jesus christ... that IS unacceptable, if it's slower than my freakin' Echo.

Dude i just downloaded the program online and put in all specs from Mazda website and the only way i can come close to ur numbers is with a 4900 rpm launch in the Auto what numbers did u input to get those 0-60 times
PS cool program by the way i used a 3300 lb weight with driver and fuel

I also forgot to say why would anybody buy 6 speed RX8 when they could get G35 sedan (real 4 seats) with automatic transmission and still going 0-60 in 6.1 seconds which beats 6.6 seconds of RX8. I hope SA22C is right. 7.3 is alot better than freaking 9.5 seconds which is like most people said toyota echo.

Lets see i think that the G35 is not that good looking the RX-8 interior blows it away. I like the Z350 styling but no rear seats and the car only looks good on the outside once u sit inside u will want to gag. yah i can live with a 7.3 sec 60 time with an auto i will use this car everyday and as long as it is faster then my GTI Auto 1.8T i will be happy reliability on VW sucks the big one my car has been in the shop 18 times in 3 years

Originally posted by MRocks
Back in '96, my father leased a Corvette, and the dealer told him at that time around 80% of the vette buyers opted for auto. AUTO ON A VETTE! I guess some people just don't want to bother with a stick shift, who knows.
Do you find this shocking? Last time I was at my Porsche/Audi dealer there was an absolutely beautiful Seal Grey 911 Turbo in the service bay... and it was equipped with the Tiptronic automatic tranny (though if I recall correctly the automatic tranny is actually faster on 0-60 and 0-100 runs than the manual...)

There are also rumors that the next generation of BMW "M" cars will only come with the SMG manual; there will be no option to get a six speed for those who like to clutch themselves.

To bring it back to Mazda, my local dealer said that despite the advertising, every 6 they get in will come with an auto tranny if they don't specify it's a customer order; if they just try and order a manual for inventory Mazda will actually change the tranny on them to automatic; go figure...

Originally posted by BillK

Do you find this shocking? Last time I was at my Porsche/Audi dealer there was an absolutely beautiful Seal Grey 911 Turbo in the service bay... and it was equipped with the Tiptronic automatic tranny (though if I recall correctly the automatic tranny is actually faster on 0-60 and 0-100 runs than the manual...)

Even if it was, I'd rather have the manual. It's all about control of what gear you are in. I'd never buy a Ferrari with the F1- give me a clutch any day! I like the involvement.

Well on the high end sport cars the auto trannies are not "regular" type.. but SMG and such.. Those trannies are actually quicker at switching gears than a human and allow you to match revs..
But I also question the choice of buying a very high revving, small displacement engine vehicle with an auto transmission.. The two just don't mix for very good performance. :(

"But I also question the choice of buying a very high revving, small displacement engine vehicle with an auto transmission.. The two just don't mix for very good performance. "

You have obviously not commuted to work in NYC i would get the 6 speed if i lived in a rural area but its not my idea of fun to sit in traffic for sometimes 2 hrs to go somewhere and kill my clutch and my left leg :-D

Originally posted by Calibus
Lets see i think that the G35 is not that good looking the RX-8 interior blows it away. I like the Z350 styling but no rear seats and the car only looks good on the outside once u sit inside u will want to gag. yah i can live with a 7.3 sec 60 time with an auto .......


Which brings out the next logical contender: Infiniti G35 Coupe. :p

Here is the Nissan performance spectrum:

1) 350Z Roadster: Open air + Style
2) 350Z: Performance + Style
3) G35 Coupe: Performance + Style + some Luxury + some practicality
4) G35 Sedan: Practicality + Performance + some luxury + Some Style
5) FX35 AWD: Practicality + some performance + luxury + some style.

Price: $28000-$37000 loaded

I would agree with others though, if the auto is slower than 7.5 or 8 secs, you might as well go with an Accord, Altima, TSX, G35, Mazda 6, 325ci, or Corolla.


Manufacturers usually underestimate 0-60 time in publications to be on the conservative side. However, base on what I have seen, the auto RX-8 is far less than impressive, the tranny is ancient and 210hp with miniscule improvement in torque. Like we have been saying all along, high-revving rotary and automatic do not go well together. Damn, I know plenty of SUV's that can get to 60 in less time.

Ok,
Beef up the tranny, performance torq converter, get the carbon fiber driveshaft. Not sure about how to add the third intake port yet, have to wait for the service manual on that one. Outside of that, you'll have to tweak the computer to shift differently & remove rev limiting feature.
I feel your pain, but just because you have an auto doesn't mean you have to be slow. There's an old guy with a 99 corvette & a modified auto tranny that takes home a trophy every month at our local drag strip amateur comp. A lot of the street comp guys are switching to autos to take out the human factor in shift times. All you have to worry about is the redlight, flooring it, and keeping it straight, computer does the rest. Not purist, not Don Franks old-english glory hour, just modern technology.
norats

Originally posted by norats

Not sure about how to add the third intake port yet, have to wait for the service manual on that one.

I don't think you'll be able to just 'add' the 3rd port. It'll be add the other engine. If you've gotten 'The Book' yet check in there. It has an internal diagram of the 2 engines.

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Well on the high end sport cars the auto trannies are not "regular" type.. but SMG and such.. Those trannies are actually quicker at switching gears than a human and allow you to match revs..


On the Porsche and Corvette, it's still the same old torque convertered auto tranny style that's been around for years. The 9.5 0-60 is much, much slower than I would have expected. Maybe it was just a misprint? I know all of the people who ordered autos are probably hoping so....

Calibus, cool your from Staten Island - what part? Also if you have a VW GTi, and you want awesome style and awesome interior and better preformance - check out an Audi TT. It uses the same 1.8T engine for the most part and has 4 seats loads of cargo room, awd if you opt for the manual and fwd if you opt for the auto. Plus if you can snag a '03 or '02 that is a left over on a dealer lot it may qualify as a "audi certified" car and whatever warranty it has left of the 4 year 60,000 mile new car warranty you get to tag on an additional 2 years or up to 100,000 mile warranty. It's definitely something to look into since you sound like you want more style and decent preformance. Even if the TT preformance isn't exactly what your looking for just think of this - it makes for a really stylish winter car too. Just a thought. Oh btw I am from Great Kills.

I know i got automatic because im gonna be shleppin back and forth to college on 95 alot


Why would that be a reason to get an auto? You shouldn't really be shifting on a long, highway drive...


A lot of the street comp guys are switching to autos to take out the human factor in shift times.


Auto transmissions on the dragstrip on large-displacement domestic strip monsters are nothing new. If you're vaulting down the 1/4 at below 12 seconds, then you're putting so much power down that you should probably try to control the direction of the car with both hands and all your attention :)

New technology such as SMG and CVT, etc, are making it so you get more control, providing a blend of performance and daily-driving comfort not seen in typical upgraded torque-converter A/Ts. But I still prefer an element of human involvement/skill, and in a car like the 8, I think its necessary to have a manual. That said, I think those who still must get an auto 8 should probably wait for the 5AT and/or SMGs. (But of course, test drive it and see for yourself)

If I had a project torque-monster dragmobile, it'd be an auto. If I lived in NYC and had to commute in rush-hour...I probably wouldn't get a sports car regardless, at least as a daily-driver.