Well I'm glad to hear the rating is down by Mazda because it wasn't pretty. On 91 octane, California gas.

http://www.xbmotoring.com/rx81.jpg

and

http://www.xbmotoring.com/rx82.jpg

Next time I'll try 100 octane.

That equals from 202 - 209 Crank HP assuming a 17% drivetrain loss. Using Mazda's figure of 238 HP that would be about a 27%-30% drivetrain loss. The difference between this and many of the others (done at 93 octane I think) is about 5- 10 WHP, which seems to make sense.

There is no way this engine is spitting 238 HP at the flywheel or that carbon fiber drivetrain was one big waste of money!! These numbers all seem to be consistent with my view that the RX8 felt about as fast, if not a bit slower than the RSX Type S and Celica GTS.

That's horrendous!
Can we assume that Mazda's 238bhp announcement is simply a diversionary tactic to stall the outcry and perhaps head it off. Perhaps the forum should put as much effort into pushing for an answer to the 'where is the stated 238bhp' question as it did for the 'where is the stated 247bhp' question. Something is VERY wrong here.

Granted I haven't been reading the other threads on this topic in depth and don't claim to be an auto mechanic in anyway, but according to these graphs and others I've seen....isn't it a bit suspicious that when the 3rd intake opens nothing much happens except that you lose power for a second? Their is no significant gain from only 2 inlet ports.

I would expect this graph to continue on upward to the annouced HP numbers (- drivetrain loss) from Mazda once that 3rd port opened....wasn't that the point of it? This falls right in line with what some people are experiencing with the lack of (expetected) punch above 6500rpm and/or the inability to rev easily past that point...this is clearly visible on this graph.

I guess the Renesis will not outdo the F20C in terms of linear torque curves? BTW..did the International Engine of the Year award only consider new engines because I can't see how they could have picked it over the F20C, given the Renesis's current performance.

Is that an AT or MT?

What's up guys. I'm actually a TSX owner and admin at acura-tsx.com and have been following the the RX8 and this interesting HP saga. I know a lot of you have very poor impressions of the TSX power plant and car in general. I'm not being a troll but wanted to post this tsx dyno as a comparison as I know a lot of you have very poor impressions of it.

http://photos.imageevent.com/provench/acuratsx/miscpics/websize/jab31169_dyno.jpg


This is one of our users with the 6mt on a dyno jet, about 1500 miles on his car. Honda seemed to underate this motor, it's more like 205 hp or so and 180lbft.(we have another dyno showing 179hp but it's from a mag so I dont' know how believable it is)

It looks like another great Honda powerplant.

Looking the same........ how many miles on each car?

Honda seems to have made a bit of a compromise on performance with this engine. They gave it a lot of low end(relatively) at the expense of some top end hp. So far it seems to respond well to mods. Anyway like i said i don't want to hijack or be a troll. Just for comparison purposes. The car is heavier +fwd so it's not going to be as quick. We have one user all sock hit 15.5 @90.xxmph. (stock tsx tires are touring allseason)

Originally posted by The One RX-8

Next time I'll try 100 octane.


Actually, next time try 87 octane on one...

Trying a lower octane may help. It seems to give my car a couple extra horsepower and more importantly it seems to lessen the dips during the intake port switching. I posted some "dyno" tests here:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?threadid=9402

What was the temperature during the dyno runs? Even when I am running 93 octane, my car seems to dislike the heat. On a very hot day my car will lose over 10WHP due to the weather. I imagine it would be even worse on a dyno without air circulation of the car in motion. I'm waiting for a nice 50 degree night to do a cold weather test.

thanks Dan as i was questioning the same thing. The One RX-8, what exactly makes you think 100 octane would help here? you dont seem to understand the differences between octanes.

How eactly does octane work with rotary motors?

It's a trueism that lower octane fuel is less refined and thus has more potential power in it. With a piston motor what higher octane does is require a highe rcompression to be ignited. this lets you adjust ignition timing for more gain, but not because the fuel itself has more energy in it.

Both cars had around 1500 miles. Both were 6MT's.

No temp data while on the dyno. I know while driving underhood temps have reached the 170F near the the throttle body. Where the air is drawn from however is close to ambient, right under 90 degrees. I couldn't get the IAT's due to the CAN system that Mazda/Ford uses.

I will try 87 octane as well.

Originally posted by zoom44
you dont seem to understand the differences between octanes.

I am testing on claims only. 95 is the recommended octane. 100 octane is my next closest choice.

Originally posted by rx8racer
Trying a lower octane may help. It seems to give my car a couple extra horsepower and more importantly it seems to lessen the dips during the intake port switching. I posted some "dyno" tests here:
http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?threadid=9402

What was the temperature during the dyno runs? Even when I am running 93 octane, my car seems to dislike the heat. On a very hot day my car will lose over 10WHP due to the weather. I imagine it would be even worse on a dyno without air circulation of the car in motion. I'm waiting for a nice 50 degree night to do a cold weather test.

Outside temps are noted on the dynograph. The first car was run in the afternoon and the other at 8 am. These cars seem to have one of the most heat generating engine bays that I've worked with.

Originally posted by rotarynews.com



Actually, next time try 87 octane on one...


Do you think we should be using 87 octane. This is my first rotary and I have been using the Premium. 15-19 mpg. Thanks

I noticed that the charts seemed a little wavy after the 7200 rpm dip. This may have been the ECU backing off the timing due to detonation in the heat. I'm just taking a guess but it would explain the low numbers in the heat. I'm going to try my car on some 87 octane in the 85 degree heat in about an hour today. We'll see what it does.

if you are getting detonation isn't higher octane the way to go? Or is that a difference in piston vs. rotary. Intuitively does't seem so as higher octane requires higher heat/pressure to combust.

Damn those numbers are low.. My Prelude dyno'ed around 168whp with a few basic mods.. :(

At around 7400rpms the hp/tq take a big dip and never seem to recover after that. :(

Originally posted by jerzeydevil
Granted I haven't been reading the other threads on this topic in depth and don't claim to be an auto mechanic in anyway, but according to these graphs and others I've seen....isn't it a bit suspicious that when the 3rd intake opens nothing much happens except that you lose power for a second? Their is no significant gain from only 2 inlet ports.

I would expect this graph to continue on upward to the annouced HP numbers (- drivetrain loss) from Mazda once that 3rd port opened....wasn't that the point of it? This falls right in line with what some people are experiencing with the lack of (expetected) punch above 6500rpm and/or the inability to rev easily past that point...this is clearly visible on this graph.

Exactly my thought!, A Car Mag complained that the third stage intake ports are stuck and thus there was a loss of power. Mazda found out that this is the case, and instead of recalling all engines, it just gave out rebate/buy back deals... That totally sucks!!

I would expect the Torque curve to stay above 125 lbft all the way to redline. It seem that the 3rd stage is not working.

We saw a drop of 25 WHP on the Acura CL-S when the 2nd stage intake valave was faulty !!

Nashua.

Originally posted by NashuaCLS


Exactly my thought!, A Car Mag complained that the third stage intake ports are stuck and thus there was a loss of power. .....

it was SCC on a pre-production car before any production cars even in japan were on the road. the stuck port was found to be a manufacturing problem from the parts supplier and was fixed before production. there have been no reports of any stuck tertiary ports in any production car in Japan or the US.

After all the HP saga, all the guessing and speculation. Mazda's admittance of lower than stated power, etc, etc. I dynoed my car at 1050 miles 5 weeks ago and averaged 180whp... bla, bla, bla..

Today, I got spanked [actually about even] by a Toyota Solara V6 AT. It's 225hp and 3241lbs. Without any technical explainations - the RX-8 should NOT trail behind a Solara!!!! It's 13hp less and 241lbs heavier with an auto tranny.

Yes, the RX-8 is fun but it's NOT fast. Zippy. Weee. Where is the Zoom Zoom?

Mazda is LYING about the 9hp. It's WAY more than that. A $21,000 family car can pull on my $30+k "sporty" car.

FYI: Mine is a 6MT with 2700 miles, only me in the car and a half tank of gas.

That sucks big time. I just came from short test drive of the RX-8 6-speed. At 180 WHP SAE that is some 210 HP at the crank give or take couple HPs. That is a loss of 40 HP from that 247-250 HP claim. Mazda should Supercharged all RX-8 to get to 250 HP or 210 WHP! That is a 25 lbft at the wheels and 30 WHP lost...!!

My CLS will do 14.6s in the 1/4 in the 90F 85%Humidity summer heat. My CLS is so heavy like... at 3495 with me at 185lbs. I dynoed at 238 WHP Acutual and 226 SAE WHP.

I believe if the RX can lay down 135 lbft and 210 WHP at 8500 rpms it should hit low 14s and hi 13s...

Ah... Mazda is scewing us all.

Nashua.

.

Originally posted by 1stRX8
After all the HP saga, all the guessing and speculation. Mazda's admittance of lower than stated power, etc, etc. I dynoed my car at 1050 miles 5 weeks ago and averaged 180whp... bla, bla, bla..

Today, I got spanked [actually about even] by a Toyota Solara V6 AT. It's 225hp and 3241lbs. Without any technical explainations - the RX-8 should NOT trail behind a Solara!!!! It's 13hp less and 241lbs heavier with an auto tranny.

Yes, the RX-8 is fun but it's NOT fast. Zippy. Weee. Where is the Zoom Zoom?

Mazda is LYING about the 9hp. It's WAY more than that. A $21,000 family car can pull on my $30+k "sporty" car.

FYI: Mine is a 6MT with 2700 miles, only me in the car and a half tank of gas.

Originally posted by 1stRX8
Today, I got spanked [actually about even] by a Toyota Solara V6 AT. ...

how old was the grandmother driving the solara and what was the total weight with her, the car, the quarter tank of gas, the load of groceries in the trunk and thespare tire she was toting?
also did you have your radio and auto dimming mirror on? i hear having them off you can shave off about 2 hundredths of a second in the 1/4 mile if you turn them off.

also the peddle on the left is the clutch which if depressed allows you to move that stick on the console to your right to a different gear selection, then you have to release that clutch peddle again and depress the accelerator peddle which is the one to your right. also the larger stick thing that pokes up to the right of the previosly mentioned gear selector stick is the hand brake. press the little button on the end and let the stick go all the way to it's lowest position.

I mentioned in another thread that there is no way it is putting out 238hp and no way it'll do 0-60 in 5.9 sec. Well not the ones being sold to the public anyway. I based this on the fact that the motor is behaving just like any large streetport rotary putting out about 200hp at the crank with a RB holley or weber. I am dismayed at the fact that with all the hype and cutting edge technology they came up with the same numbers as you would get with a streetport 13B of the eighties with a carb on it! Don't be surprised if some of you satisfied owners get smoked by a $2500 84-85 RX-7 since the 8 is oh about 600-700 lb heavier.
I know, I know, it is the overall value that counts and the styling and handling etc. that a lot of you don't mind paying the $32k for. But let's face it, almost all rotary enthusiasts were looking forward to a 250 N/A rotary. Any input on the j-spec engines? I would be really surprised if they had the extra 30-40hp.

TurboSE, did you just compare a stock vehicle to a modded vehicle? how about your modded vehicle to a similarly modded rx-7 twin turbo?

Are we saying that the RX8 makes the same power but less torque than a TSX? Doesn't the TSX have the same engine as the RSX-S? Don't both TSX and RSX-S sell for thousands less than a comparable equipped RX-8? Mazda better get their acts together, it's a competitive market, and consumers are not dumb.

define "we" maniacman.

You know what I think. Instead of going ON AND ON AND ON about speculations of what could be the problem. I say somebody tries to figure out what it is. If the only difference between the US version and the Japanese one is the stuff they put on for emissions then why doesnt somebody figure out what that stuff is and take it off. Without all the stuff added on for the US model for it to pass emissions it SHOULD dyno the same as the Japanese version. If it doesnt then thats not the problem. I dont know what this involves but if its just stuff thats bolted on then it should be pretty easy to figure out. If its electrical and has to do with computer stuff then could we possibly get the Japanese electrical stuff and install it in the US version. Im sorry i dont know what any of this is called but i know a little, and it seems that this shouldnt be too hard to figure out. There has to be somebody we can turn to besides Mazda to find out whats wrong because they obviously dont want to help. If we can find out whats wrong with these cars then we can get on Mazda's case and know exactly whats wrong with the car and demand that they fix it. ....and that would be super!!:D

Originally posted by zoom44
TurboSE, did you just compare a stock vehicle to a modded vehicle? how about your modded vehicle to a similarly modded rx-7 twin turbo?

well, my point was that 20 years later you would expect a more dramatic improvement than what you would get by porting any old 13B and a few bolt-on upgrades. All the hype about how much more efficient the side port configuration is got me excited about the future. Now I cannot find one person who even gets 25mpg so there is not much improvement in power or economy in my humble opinion. Yes it is the most powerful n/a rotary but it cannot even outperform a 4cyl honda powerplant.:(
Btw, if my car had a similar sized turbo as the 3rd gen rx-7, I would have very similar straightline performance since the motor internals are nearly the same. What it boils down to is that the displacement is the limiting factor for the 13b configuration. I think the rx-8 and renesis would be an attractive buy if it was priced at $22-24K max. Afterall, what made the rotary rx-7 attractive at first was CHEAP performance. What killed it was the eventual hefty price tag.

Originally posted by partovi
You know what I think. Instead of going ON AND ON AND ON about speculations of what could be the problem. I say somebody tries to figure out what it is. If the only difference between the US version and the Japanese one is the stuff they put on for emissions then why doesnt somebody figure out what that stuff is and take it off. Without all the stuff added on for the US model for it to pass emissions it SHOULD dyno the same as the Japanese version. If it doesnt then thats not the problem. I dont know what this involves but if its just stuff thats bolted on then it should be pretty easy to figure out. If its electrical and has to do with computer stuff then could we possibly get the Japanese electrical stuff and install it in the US version. Im sorry i dont know what any of this is called but i know a little, and it seems that this shouldnt be too hard to figure out. There has to be somebody we can turn to besides Mazda to find out whats wrong because they obviously dont want to help. If we can find out whats wrong with these cars then we can get on Mazda's case and know exactly whats wrong with the car and demand that they fix it. ....and that would be super!!:D

We have Paul Yaw who is quite a 1st gen guru who has a renesis on his engine dyno. I haven't seen him post of late since mazda's downward revision. Maybe he is a little dissappointed as well???

It's looken like the rx8 is a pile of trash after all.......overrated on the fuel economy, overrated on the HP....and yes, i'm an FD owner. I hope Mazda gets their shit together soon.

Originally posted by rx7 rage
It's looken like the rx8 is a pile of trash after all.......overrated on the fuel economy, overrated on the HP....and yes, i'm an FD owner. I hope Mazda gets their shit together soon.


Gee, thanks for that very constructive post!

Originally posted by loco4rx8



Gee, thanks for that very constructive post!

why thank you...you all know it's true. I'd expect an rx8 to beat a fucken toyota solara in a straight line at least even with the 13 MPG. HAHAHAHAH

also the peddle on the left is the clutch which if depressed allows you to move that stick on the console to your right to a different gear selection, then you have to release that clutch peddle again and depress the accelerator peddle which is the one to your right. also the larger stick thing that pokes up to the right of the previosly mentioned gear selector stick is the hand brake. press the little button on the end and let the stick go all the way to it's lowest position.


More detail... The driver was an ~18yr old male [mom's car] we were at a stop sign. My lane in about 1/8mi closed into his. I didn't expect him to mess with me but I had a lot of motivation to get far enough ahead to move into his lane after an 1/8 mile. Easy off the line for me - he jumps on the Solara. FULL throttle, I shift at about 8.5k or so [again, easy] fully expecting that I would easily pull ahead without a full-on nano-second powershift. At this point he was about 2ft ahead and I was BARELEY pulling on him. The 1/8 mile was very quickly coming to an end and he let up first and I coasted in front. There is no way, even with an 8,000 pm drag start and a perfect 1-2 shift that I could have pulled by if he did not ease up. WTF.

I never purchased the car [first in Houston] to drag race. I do, however, feel ripped-off. Not that the car is 9hp shy according to Mazda. If it was ONLY that much I would really care. 30+ hp has my blood BOILING fueled my MAZDA LYING. If the flywheel produced 238hp and the car is 3000lb, it would be a different experience. If Mazda said from the beginning that it would be 210hp I would still buy it. Now, I feel like a sucker. I don't want to give it back - I want an RX-8 with at least 238hp of not 247.

BTW - I have been an EXTREME rotary fan since 1985 and a continuous owner for more than 13 years. I have built a number of rotary engines an enjoyed every moment of it. I have enjoyed most every moment of the RX-8.

Bad RX-8 Moments:

1) When I dynoed the car 5 weeks ago and first discovered it's little secret.

2) When I realized I have no chance of passing a Toyota Solara if he/she decides to accelerate.

3) When Mazda is F^+$(ing lying about a 9hp correction that does not affect performance.

4) When I realized that the RX-8 will be laughed at by other enthusiasts unless I drop $$$$ on mods so that I can hang with Boxters, and S2000's.

I am at a loss. I waited many years to own a fresh, brand new, rotary car. Huge improvements from previous NA rotarys, but not keeping up with the 280+hp [real hp] V6's.

We have Paul Yaw who is quite a 1st gen guru who has a renesis on his engine dyno. I haven't seen him post of late since mazda's downward revision. Maybe he is a little dissappointed as well???

Mazda is paying him to keep quiet.


I hope this may provoke a response from one of the few people who can shed light on this. ACOSTA RACING has pulled a RENESIS for the 20B transplant. I would pitch in $$ to put that on a dyno.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Are we saying that the RX8 makes the same power but less torque than a TSX? Doesn't the TSX have the same engine as the RSX-S? Don't both TSX and RSX-S sell for thousands less than a comparable equipped RX-8? Mazda better get their acts together, it's a competitive market, and consumers are not dumb.

Hi Skyline,
They both ar I-VTEC engines, but the TSX uses a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder while RSX-S uses a 2.0 liter. They are both rated at 200 HP at the crank, but the TSX has a lower redline and more torque due mostly to its greater displacement. The RSX-S has an excellent torque curve, in fact its very similar in shape to the original one for the RX8 albeit at lower amounts. That's one of the reasons I thought the RX8 was short on power at the top end because it felt very different as compared to the RSX-S (the RSX-S's torque curve increases slightly and stays flat until its HP peak where the RX8's torque curve drops after 6,250 RPMS).

BTW...the RSX-S does this pretty clean. It does very well on all pollution tests (including Greenhouse Gases) and averages about 28 MPG.

A lot of people thought Mazda (with the Renesis) would seriously challenge Honda as the king of the small engine. However, it looks like those thoughts were a bit too premature.

Hmm....new dynos, consistent results. This trend is starting to look disturbing.

BTW, was the question of "is this done on a MT" been covered?

EDIT: oh ok I saw it, nevermind.

If i am reading these dyno plots right , and my understamding is that the first two ports on th low and high power versions are the same, we could expect the 4-port engine to put out about 169 whp with the manual transmission and CF driveshaft (13% loss:) ) so maybe with the AT and regular drive shaft we could hope for 162whp or 17% drivetrain loss.

those more knowledgable please expose any inaccuracies in this as the only dyno graphs I have ever seen are on this forum--but I can tell when the third port opens @ 7250 by the canyon in hte graph:mad:

Originally posted by 1stRX8


Mazda is paying him to keep quiet.


I hope this may provoke a response from one of the few people who can shed light on this. ACOSTA RACING has pulled a RENESIS for the 20B transplant. I would pitch in $$ to put that on a dyno.

I dont understand why you want to engine dyno the RX-8. Its not like this is a different engine then the one in Japan. The one in Japan is putting out the correct amount of HP so we know its not the engine. Just saw a clip of an RX-8 going 160mph. The engine is very powerful but something about what they have done to pass emissions in the US has totally restricted the engine somehow. Find out what that is and this whole issue will be solved. I agree with 1stRX8 on mazda keeping this guy quiet, and i wouldnt rely on him for an answer. Figure out what they did to the US version and remove it then dyno it and you should see your missing HP.

Originally posted by partovi


I dont understand why you want to engine dyno the RX-8. Its not like this is a different engine then the one in Japan. The one in Japan is putting out the correct amount of HP so we know its not the engine... Figure out what they did to the US version and remove it then dyno it and you should see your missing HP.

Exactly! I would be very interested in seeing some dynos from a Japanese spec high powered model.

Originally posted by zoom44


it was SCC on a pre-production car before any production cars even in japan were on the road. the stuck port was found to be a manufacturing problem from the parts supplier and was fixed before production. there have been no reports of any stuck tertiary ports in any production car in Japan or the US.
Think about it for a second.
When Mazda had the cars out for the magazine guys to test they were getting awful performance.
Then they pulled the cars and came up with that excuse.
There is nothing to show they were being truthful

It seems much more likely that the performance was sucking, and this was just another lie they told to try and hide the real power levels.

i thought someone dynoed a japanese version?

ill search the boards to makesure im not mistaken, if indeed i do find something, ill link it in
________
Body Science (http://bodyscience.ws/)

Partovi....
I dont understand why you want to engine dyno the RX-8. Its not like this is a different engine then the one in Japan.

I have no doubts about the engine. I am more interested in the ECU and other support components that are different on the US model. I really would like to know if my [and others] gueswork math is close to reality. I figure my car is making in the neigborhood of 217hp... 21 shy of the 238 and 30 shy of the 247 expected. This based on WHP measurements of ~180.

Measuring a full US spec SYSTEM would give us an idea of how bad Mazda is doing on this sensitive topic. They have A LOT to lose and will protect their interests - It's Business. I someone has the capacity to call the bluff - we would all likely end up with 21 more hp in our cars or at least more money.

Originally posted by 1stRX8
Bad RX-8 Moments:
2) When I realized I have no chance of passing a Toyota Solara if he/she decides to accelerate.


On the other hand -

Good RX-8 Moments:

1) While on the return leg of our California road trip, we're followed up a mountain pass by an Acura TSX. I thought "how cute, he wants to play" (Our RX-8 had 2 adults and 2 wks worth of luggage on board, the TSX driver was solo). I pick up the pace, and as I accelerate through the second curve I see the TSX understeering into the wide shoulder lane. Talk about lame - that thing couldn't even keep up with the loaded down RX-8 being driven at about 7/10ths (no tire squeal on the curves from me). He kept trying, but quickly disappeared from view completely.

Who cares if other cars have similar power, when they handle like pigs? FWD sucks, a properly done RWD chassis rules in the turns. The RX-8 is a balanced package. Go ahead and return your car and buy a RSX-S or whatever, and continue with your stoplight drag races. You're missing out on the best capabilities of the RX-8.

Not to say that I'm pleased that Mazda wasn't especially careful to avoid the same mistake again (and to suggest that they deliberately mislead RX-8 buyers is ridiculous), but I'm interested in what was changed and when someone will be able to develop a new ECU program to reflash our existing ECUs. It looks obvious from the dyno plots that the third ports are where the problem is... (along with the third intake tract, etc.)

Regards,
Gordon

Just an observation on those dyno plots (but I am by no means an expert, so please tell me if I'm wrong) but they appear to have been done in 3rd gear.

I thought for the most accurate readings a dyno pull was done in whichever gear ratio is closest to 1.0:1.0. Is this not the case?

I know 5th gear seems awfully high for a dyno pull, but well, that is 1 to 1.

Who cares if other cars have similar power, when they handle like pigs? FWD sucks, a properly done RWD chassis rules in the turns. The RX-8 is a balanced package. Go ahead and return your car and buy a RSX-S or whatever, and continue with your stoplight drag races. You're missing out on the best capabilities of the RX-8.

Agreed.

I did not buy the 8 on HP/weight ratio alone. I like the car very much. My wife and two kids can come along for a very fun ride. I don't mean to bash the 8, but rather Mazda for not FULLY owning up to a glaring flaw in the car. I am sure they could deliver 250hp if they had no concern for emissions. However, emmissions laws aren't new. How could a team of very high-end engineers miss that? I don't think they did. The only way this type of issue "slips" is via upper management avoiding initial PR slams the the RX-8 is underpowered. I would venture to say that HP ratings are very important to sporty drivers - [regardless of the weight of the car, ironically].

If the general public saw a commercial for "The All-New 210hp RX-8 for ONLY $30k", I think it would create a significantly different response than "The All-New 250hp RX-8 for ONLY $30k". I don't think that Mazda did this on purpose. I do think that the Marketing dept. put unreasonable pressure on engineering to get the HP number to a marketable level. The RX-01 was doing 270+hp, but had no concerns about emissions at the time. Marketing did some quick-calcs and decided that 250 was the right idea - the published "target hp" was 250.

My biggest rub with Mazda remains: It's A LOT more than 9hp-Admit it!!! And fix it. I don't care about $500 and maintenence. I don't want to give the car back. 238hp would be fine - 217 is NOT fine and that is what my car is developing.

Has anyone considered trying to purchase a JDM ECU for their car?

SC

Has anyone considered trying to purchase a JDM ECU for their car?

I would love to try. I can drive a compny car while mine is being worked on. Where, When, How much?

Originally posted by partovi


I dont understand why you want to engine dyno the RX-8. Its not like this is a different engine then the one in Japan. The one in Japan is putting out the correct amount of HP so we know its not the engine. Just saw a clip of an RX-8 going 160mph. The engine is very powerful but something about what they have done to pass emissions in the US has totally restricted the engine somehow. Find out what that is and this whole issue will be solved. I agree with 1stRX8 on mazda keeping this guy quiet, and i wouldnt rely on him for an answer. Figure out what they did to the US version and remove it then dyno it and you should see your missing HP.

Because people want to see what the engine makes at a engine dyno with the US spec ECU and the emmisions equipment and to compare it to the 238hp number Mazda North America is giving now. The japanese engines may make 250hp run by the Japanese ECU or aftermarket ones but this is another story

Originally posted by 1stRX8


I would love to try. I can drive a compny car while mine is being worked on. Where, When, How much?

THANK YOU!!! Now we are getting somewhere. We could see if we can get one of our members in Japan to talk to their dealer about getting one and then getting it shipped over here. Finally somebody is wanting to take some action to find out exactly what the problem is. Lets get the US spec RX-8 out of the hospital and see what it can really do. :D

Edit: Ohh ok i didnt know about the ECU Still governing the engine on the engine dyno...lets get a JDM ECU over here and put it in somebodies car....great idea

So the dynographs at the beginning of this thread show 170 hp at the wheels.

The closest car mechanically to the RX-8 is the Miata. The current Miatas have the same gearbox as the RX-8. Probably a bit different (gear ratios, etc.) but it is the same unit. RX-8 has driveshaft probably lighter than the metal one in the Miata. The rear ends are probably comparable too.

Miatas dynoing 170 hp at the wheels make about 196 hp at the crank. It is about 26 hp drivetrain loss at these power levels. Miata builders have pulled out engines for engine dyno sessions and compared them to the wheel hp to come to this 26 hp number for this power levels - so is not a guess.

You probably can assume that the two 6sp MT RX8 whose dyno charts were posted in this thread are making 196 hp at the crank neighbourhood which is far away from the 238 hp announced.

I hope with the miles when engines get broken in, they will gain the missing ~ 40hp to 238 hp, but who knows ...

Most people here seems to think that the last dip in power and how crazy it gets at the top end is due to the third port opening. I think different. Look at the dyno plots, the last dip in power (which is never recovered) occurs around 7300 rpms. Thats when the fresh air duct and the variable intake valve open changing the resonance of the intake. It seems to me that there lays the reason for the drop in top end power. Why? I don't know. Maybe the K/N intake gets its 16hp gains because of this.

Originally posted by neit_jnf
Most people here seems to think that the last dip in power and how crazy it gets at the top end is due to the third port opening. I think different. Look at the dyno plots, the last dip in power (which is never recovered) occurs around 7300 rpms. Thats when the fresh air duct and the variable intake valve open changing the resonance of the intake. It seems to me that there lays the reason for the drop in top end power. Why? I don't know. Maybe the K/N intake gets its 16hp gains because of this.

I wish this were the case. I have tested the system without the variable valve and just straight open with direct fan air and it almost laid down on top of the stock graph.

Originally posted by The One RX-8


I wish this were the case. I have tested the system without the variable valve and just straight open with direct fan air and it almost laid down on top of the stock graph.

You're talking about the fesh air duct on the airbox right? The variable valve is part of the intake manifold and opens at the same time as the fresh air duct, its purpose is to shorten the intake lenght causing a change in resonance for the high rpm resonance supercharging effect. Maybe it's not working as it should.

Originally posted by canzoomer

Think about it for a second.
When Mazda had the cars out for the magazine guys to test they were getting awful performance.
Then they pulled the cars and came up with that excuse.
There is nothing to show they were being truthful

It seems much more likely that the performance was sucking, and this was just another lie they told to try and hide the real power levels.

no the sticking port valve was an actual verified problem with pre-production cars. this is no lie. the lie here is when you say the cars were all getting awful performance, which can be proven a lie by just reading the pre-prod test articles, for instance the ones written by dan and bern from rotarynews.com after the ran the cars at the laguna seca event.

Originally posted by neit_jnf


You're talking about the fesh air duct on the airbox right? The variable valve is part of the intake manifold and opens at the same time as the fresh air duct, its purpose is to shorten the intake lenght causing a change in resonance for the high rpm resonance supercharging effect. Maybe it's not working as it should.

yeah this struck me earlier. the tertiary ports openat 6250 its the variable valve/fresh airduct we're seeing there. so lets try some more logical speculation here with some of our more engineering minded forum members. how could the stateside emission parts effect the resonance tuning on the intake side and if it could what would that effect be.

Does anyone here know for sure if the j-spec rx-8 is indeed putting out 250 hp or is it just "wishful" thinking?

That is an EXCELLENT question!!!!! Mazda??? The clock is ticking.....

Originally posted by Thunder
That is an EXCELLENT question!!!!! Mazda??? The clock is ticking.....
Some of us have been trying to find a Japonese contac twho has had a dyno run on theirs.
Unfortunately the guys on this forum in the Asia section all seem to be from Singapore.

in regards to the Japanese Spec Dyno Data Sheet
--- Re Amemiya ran one for the exhaust which can be seen in the Autoexe and Re Amemiya article someone posted not long ago. It shows the dyno graph of the horsepower.

I dont know about you guys, but I think the RX-8 is damn fast and doesnt feel like 190whp... I've floored it and gotten to 94 mph before I even got to fifth gear... I mean it rockets up there like no other!

Originally posted by Efini 8
I dont know about you guys, but I think the RX-8 is damn fast and doesnt feel like 190whp... I've floored it and gotten to 94 mph before I even got to fifth gear... I mean it rockets up there like no other! I'd have to agree. Some cars may dyno far better than others. Currently, some owners are getting 13 mpg while others are getting 19+ all the time (see my sig) I think it's safe to say that some cars have broken in better/faster than others. I am considering dynoing my car, just to see if I lucked out somehow. My car is very powerful, and "economical."

What someone needs to do is:

a. Get a S-afc, see if it works with the rx8, and try leaning it out. Most NA FC owners should have one. If it doesnt work, firgure out a way to mess with the mixture somehow, be it by modifying the hot wire afms output, or putting a resistor on the air intake temp sensor that make the car think its 150 degrees out.

b. disconnect the vacume/pressure/electrically actuated solenoids that control the 6-ports, and the VDI(for lack of a better word ill use the fc3s termenology, (thing that opens at 7250 rpm)) and dyno the car with both closed, then with just the 6-ports, then with the 6-ports and vdi, and then with just the vdi., compare them all and see where they stand.

c. Dyno a motor out of the car with full exhaust and intake to see where we really are on power, then take that to mazda


Does anyone know if the 6-ports have there own separate intake track, and if the preproduction cars did or not? I seem to remember the preporduction cars having 2 sets of throttle plates, one for ports 1-4 and another for ports 5-6. Is it true that the current production rx8 is 1 throttle plate? If they siamesed the 3,4,5 and 6 ports together into one intake track to allow for the single throttle bodie(cost cutting?) the intake manifold would have to be completely redesigned to keep the tunning right. With siameased ports the intake would have to be longer to be tuned for the same RPM, the VDI effectivly shortens the path, which could be why were seeing a power drop when its opening. But we wont know untill soemone tests the car with it closed and sees if we pick up any power.

I'm going to guess that without the vdi open, but with the 6-ports open the motor will dyno the highest. However, the engineers at mazda would have had to have been really dumb to overlook this, so its still just a guess.

Originally posted by neit_jnf
Most people here seems to think that the last dip in power and how crazy it gets at the top end is due to the third port opening. I think different. Look at the dyno plots, the last dip in power (which is never recovered) occurs around 7300 rpms. Thats when the fresh air duct and the variable intake valve open changing the resonance of the intake. It seems to me that there lays the reason for the drop in top end power. Why? I don't know. Maybe the K/N intake gets its 16hp gains because of this.

At the risk of stating the obvious, something is limiting flow in the Renesis. Based on the dyno graph provided by neit_inf, we can see than no additional hp is gained above 7,000 rpms -- in fact, the hp curve is essentially flat (barring the drop due to the intake valve operation), and TQ continues to drop. This is exactly the same kind of dyno curve one would observe on a turbocharged motor when the turbo was "maxed out," that is, out of mass flow.

Becuase hp is proportional to air mass burned, we know by observing the graph, that from 7000-9000 rpm the air mass being processed by the engine is constant, even though the motor is sweeping significantly more volume per unit time at 9000 rpm than it is at 7000 rpm. In other words, the VE of the motor is falling rapidly above 7000 rpms.

The is interesting becuase I expected the Renesis to breathe extremely well above 7000 rpm -- in fact, that's how I figured Mazda would get 247 hp out of a small NA motor that runs relatively low combustion chamber pressures (as is evident by the low TQ output of the motor). But instead, just as the motor is reaching the point where it would really start making power, breathing suffers, TQ falls, and hp stays constant.

So the question is, what's limiting air flow through the Renesis. Perhaps a poorly constructed airbox, an incredibly restrictive exhaust, or a more fundamental problem with the intake system or port design. I simply don't know. Hopefully Mazda will be able to identify the problem, and find the missing hp instead of further revising their advertised hp rating, which is still FAR too aggressive.

FWIW,
-Dave

As a previous RX-7 owner I was dying to get my hands on an 8, no longer...

There is absolutely NO WAY the RX-8 produces 238hp. There have been a couple of other dyno's posted here: RSX and miata. There should only be around 30hp driveline loss. RX-8 should be producing dyno's of just over 200hp, not 170's.

Here's more fuel, check out this dyno of a 2002 C230. 192hp manufacturer advertised, results in 167.9hp. 24hp driveline loss.

The top number of 197hp is from a simple supercharger pulley change (couple hundred bucks). Tuners claim 235hp, so if Mazda claims 238hp, dyno's should be doing high 190's or 200's not 170's.

I'm sad to say with all this talk of low HP numbers, I think I'm keeping my Benz C230. I still got my back seats + RWD + I get GREAT mileage (35 mpg highway)

I think Mazda is getting a black eye blowing all this smoke and mirrors.

Does it look like ignition break up after 6250 to anyone else?

also someone please pull the vac line, or plug to the valve that opens at 7k, not the fresh air duct, but the actuall manifold tunning vaslve, and then dyno.

OK, I am out of here.
I just looked at the Mercedes Canada site.
C230 Kompressor ( supercharged) coupe.
6 speed, 189hp
As mentioned, a $200 fix to get 235hp
That's more than our RX-8 by about 15-20hp
$34,450 Canadian

With anti-theft, bi-xenon headlights, leather wrapped goodies, Bose stereo, Evolution package ( wheels, skirting, etc.)
$38,905

That is $1,000 change on my 8, and by the time I add the upgrade on the blower and a few minor things it ends up the same price.
A heck of a lot bettter retention of value.

Or, for about $3600 more you can get the C320 sport coupe.
Same stuff, but V6-215HP, 221ft.-lb. of torque, etc.

And what else do you get from Mercedes?

Integrity.

Originally posted by neit_jnf
Most people here seems to think that the last dip in power and how crazy it gets at the top end is due to the third port opening. I think different. Look at the dyno plots, the last dip in power (which is never recovered) occurs around 7300 rpms. Thats when the fresh air duct and the variable intake valve open changing the resonance of the intake. It seems to me that there lays the reason for the drop in top end power. Why? I don't know. Maybe the K/N intake gets its 16hp gains because of this.

I'm also with you on this. The rotary engine is exceptionally similar to a 2 stroke engine in regards to power characteristics (ie high revving, rather low torque output), air flow and response to modifications (port configuration, port timing, port shape, etc). I have been around 2 stroke engines all my life and have built some of the fastest 2 strokers in the United States and after looking at the dyno plot, i honestly feel that the dip in power at 7250 or wherever it is, is due to turbulent air flow. It seems that for whatever reason, whatever is "opening" or "closing" is actually upsetting the flow of air through the engine. I'm not sure where this fresh air valve or duct is, but if it is upstream of the air metering sensor, then perhaps even the sensor is seeing this turbulent air condition and trying to compensate for it, adding to the deterioration of power. Either way my vote goes for turbulent air condition :)

I'd like to also add that i feel that there may be other things contributing to the low power condition, like the emissions equipment, etc.

Darril

Originally posted by canzoomer

And what else do you get from Mercedes?

Integrity.

Surely the C230C is a great value, but I wouldn't want to be seen in one. The styling is on the borderline of funky and fugly. (referring to the rear end alone) Also, C230C got a downgrade after introduction, it no uses a smaller engine and produces less power, which is really ashame. The handling on the C230C is not pretty either. If you Canadians can pay $3600 more and get a C320 sedan though, then that is a great deal.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac


Surely the C230C is a great value, but I wouldn't want to be seen in one. The styling is on the borderline of funky and fugly. (referring to the rear end alone) Also, C230C got a downgrade after introduction, it no uses a smaller engine and produces less power, which is really ashame. The handling on the C230C is not pretty either. If you Canadians can pay $3600 more and get a C320 sedan though, then that is a great deal. Here's one time I'll agree with you though, I wouldn't take the C320 because it's bloody automatic only :(

Originally posted by Hercules
Here's one time I'll agree with you though, I wouldn't take the C320 because it's bloody automatic only :(

let him do as he pleases. let's not get off topic about Mercedes.

sorry to hear about your love lost for the wankel canzoomer.

Originally posted by Hercules
Here's one time I'll agree with you though, I wouldn't take the C320 because it's bloody automatic only :(

Actually, the C320 SPORT COUPE as sold here in Canada comes with a 6 speed stick, 17x7.5" alloy wheels, 225/45R17 tires, and so on.

See:
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/models/main.jsp&modelCode=C320C

Specs:
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/models/features/specs/overview_engine.jsp&modelCode=C320C&class=04_C&spec=0&menu=3_1

$28,370 list in USA inc freight/PDI

I would cite the Canadian URLs, but they seem to be not available right this moment..
Bottom line with the security, Bose, leather, and so on for Canada it is $42,500 MSRP

Originally posted by wakeech

sorry to hear about your love lost for the wankel canzoomer.

I LOVE my RX-8.

I do NOT love Mazda north America however, as I now know they are lying, conniving bastards, who do not deserve our respect or business.

I hoped that with a model like this there would be some tiny effort made to resolve problems by engineering.

Instead they are apparently only interested in using lawyers to solve their problems.

I just shake my head when I read on these forums from people who praise them for the offer.
Talk to a lawyer and you quickly understand that this offer is exactly the minimum needed to prevent people from successfully suing them.

That sucks, IMHO.

I also look at the fact that I paid MSRP on a car that is now diminishing very quickly in resale value, and feel the only safe recourse is to take the buy-back option.

If they had made a more reasonable offer of cash I might have considered it, as I could have used that to bring the car back to spec. But for $500 and maybe $300 in service savings, it is not too likely.
An air cleaner might get us 16hp (claimed by K&N) but at the price of noise, and the hassle of fighting with the dealer and Mazda about warranty when I go for that service. And by installing the K&N I am not going to be using those "free" air cleaners which make up a big part of the "savings" on the service..

Ditto for exhaust, ECU re-mapping, etc.
Just to get back to claimed spec, at the price of noise and warranty support strikes me as unwise.

And, for the next twit who is reading this, with fingers twitching to tell me about the "9HP":

Get real.

Originally posted by canzoomer
OK, I am out of here.That's what we've been telling you for weeks. So long, choose the buy back, get something else.

And what else do you get from Mercedes?

Integrity. And, from the experiences of many Mercedes owners I know, you also get to know your dealer's service department really well. Mercedes reliability is not, let's say, top of their class...

BillK,

Why do you insist on putting everyone down that has a different opinion than you. All you seem to post is condescending attitude towards others. Give it a rest, will ya?

Originally posted by BillK
And, from the experiences of many Mercedes owners I know, you also get to know your dealer's service department really well. Mercedes reliability is not, let's say, top of their class...

Rather amusing to hear a Mazda owner bashing the service department and reliability of other brands. ;)

Originally posted by Efini 8
I've floored it and gotten to 94 mph before I even got to fifth gear

LOL, WTF does this mean? You should be around 90+ mph by the top of 3rd. My little brother drives a 1990 Accord 5-Speed and he also can get to 94mph if he floors it before 5th gear :D

Originally posted by loungeliz
I'm sad to say with all this talk of low HP numbers, I think I'm keeping my Benz C230. I still got my back seats + RWD + I get GREAT mileage (35 mpg highway) .
And free scheduled Maint. 48/50...

Originally posted by Napboy
BillK,
Why do you insist on putting everyone down that has a different opinion than you. All you seem to post is condescending attitude towards others. Give it a rest, will ya?
Last I read he doesn't even have an RX8 yet. Has anything changed?

Apologies, skip this post if you want pure RX-8 commentary....

canzoomer, careful about reading too much into the earlier C230 dyno post.

That is a dyno of a 2002 C230, which has a 2.3 litre engine. The 2003+ C230 has a 1.8 litre engine. 2002 = 192hp, 2003/2004 = 189hp. How can an engine with .5 liter less displacement produce only 3hp less? It's due to boost.

2002 C230 engine was really underboosted, thus it is so easy & cheap to boost it up with a simple pulley upgrade. 2003 is not the same case.

So for me with a 2002 model, there is no incentive for me to dump it and go for an RX-8.

If I had no car and was choosing between a 2003/2004 C230 and an RX-8 the choice is even. The "real" HP for the RX-8 is probably only 5 hp more but combined with 300lb lighter, it would not be worth the upgrades to try and make a new C230 perform close or better than an RX-8.

The choice would have to be a personal choice. Which look you you like better and is the AWFUL mileage of the RX-8 enough of a deterrent. The poor mileage of the RX-8 is going to add thousands to the cost of ownership of the RX-8 over comparable cars.

If I take it easy/steady I can even get 40mpg on the highway (6.9l/100km) with my C230. Usually 35mpg in normal highway driving. I presume the 2003 should do even better since it has an engine that is .5 litre smaller and lighter.

Originally posted by loungeliz
Apologies, skip this post if you want pure RX-8 commentary....


If I take it easy/steady I can even get 40mpg on the highway (6.9l/100km) with my C230. Usually 35mpg in normal highway driving. I presume the 2003 should do even better since it has an engine that is .5 litre smaller and lighter.
First I wasn't referring to all non RX8 posts, just the continuing condescending ones from particular non-owners.

Second, are you kidding us here or what? The C230 ksc is only rated at EPA 21/31 for the 2003. Or are you just trying to make us feel worse (15/18)???

Originally posted by loungeliz
Apologies, skip this post if you want pure RX-8 commentary....

canzoomer, careful about reading too much into the earlier C230 dyno post.

That is a dyno of a 2002 C230, which has a 2.3 litre engine. The 2003+ C230 has a 1.8 litre engine. 2002 = 192hp, 2003/2004 = 189hp. How can an engine with .5 liter less displacement produce only 3hp less? It's due to boost.

2002 C230 engine was really underboosted, thus it is so easy & cheap to boost it up with a simple pulley upgrade. 2003 is not the same case.

Ah, good to know. Thanks bud.


The choice would have to be a personal choice. Which look you you like better and is the AWFUL mileage of the RX-8 enough of a deterrent. The poor mileage of the RX-8 is going to add thousands to the cost of ownership of the RX-8 over comparable cars.


After some lucid thought I realised the C230 is a bit lightweight on the performance and features.
Then I looked at the (same body) C320 Sport Coupe.
Basically the same car, but stock with the bigger wheels/tires, and that 6 cylinder is not even breathing hard. Has to be some power to spare.
Not often you see torque figures higher than horsepower, let alone over 3K of rev range.
215hp and 221 torque claimed..

Here in Edmonton $42,500 with the Bose, bi-xenon, leather, alarm, etc.
I can't see spending money for that roof, or the power passenger seat.
Tempting.
Had a conversation with an ( anonymous for now) Mazda tech rep today. i am getting feedback they will honour my request for no refund, no free service, just a letter to guarantee they will provide the missing power within a year, or will buy back then.
That offer has rekindled my hope for my 8.

Originally posted by canzoomer
Had a conversation with an ( anonymous for now) Mazda tech rep today. i am getting feedback they will honour my request for no refund, no free service, just a letter to guarantee they will provide the missing power within a year, or will buy back then.
That offer has rekindled my hope for my 8. What's your particular RX-8's performance now? That needs to be documented by dyno testing.

Then when the year is up, subsequent identical dyno testing needs to be done to confirm or deny the presence of the targeted values.

If that can be promised in writing, you got a no-loose deal. That's only fair.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac
Rather amusing to hear a Mazda owner bashing the service department and reliability of other brands. ;) Actually, I do not own an RX-8 at this point.

I make no claims as to the quality of Mazda's cars one way or another. I merely mentioned that I do know more than a few people who currently own an MB and will never buy another due to the amount of time their vehicles spend at the dealer's service department.

The "grass is always greener," so to speak.

It is not, as has been suggested, an effort on my part to put down anyone that disagrees with me. Rather it's an effort to inject sanity into the discussion.

The bottom line, IMHO, is if the HP issue is such a big deal to you, taking the buyback offer seems like a no-brainer. Same with those who are worried that actual HP will turn out to be 228, or 218, or whatever.

Most people are now through breakin or will be by October 1. Drive the car as you want and decide for yourself if it is sporty enough for you. If not, take the buyback. Seems simple to me...

I will qualify my comments by saying my RX-8 hasn't come in yet, so what I will say comes only from my two test drives.

That said, last weekend I test-drove two cars. The 200 hp Acura RSX Type-S and the Mazda RX-8. The RSX weighs 2767 lbs, the RX-8 comes in at 3029 lbs (just pulling the weight numbers from yahoo autos).

Now I have to say the RX-8 felt much more powerful to me in my two test drives. I had a chance to open both cars up a bit on some back roads that were fairly straight, and the difference was noticable despite the very smooth acceleration of the RX-8. The RSX v-tech kicks in and the acceleration is obvious. But of the two the RX-8 definitely seemed more powerful and faster.

Now go figure that the RSX is quite a bit lighter, and I don't know how much faith I then put in Dynos. I mean they are essentially a benchmark, but nothing more than that. Dyno all the cars you want, but isn't it the real performance numbers that are important? 0-60 times, slalom times, 1/4 mile times, stopping distances?

Originally posted by TJRX8

First I wasn't referring to all non RX8 posts, just the continuing condescending ones from particular non-owners.

Second, are you kidding us here or what? The C230 ksc is only rated at EPA 21/31 for the 2003. Or are you just trying to make us feel worse (15/18)???

Nope I'm not kidding. In my experience with cars me and my wife have owned I usually can get better HWY than EPA and just slightly worse than City for my driving (except for my RX-7).

It is difficult to compare one's city driving vs another persons city as the conditions vary so much. For me my "bad" city results are from living and working within a major city. ie. I could probably ride my bike to work in the same time it takes me to drive to work. Who knows, biking might even be faster... but certainly less "comfortable"

HWY also has some variability for comparison, as speeds, elevation, etc still vary. But they should be comparable. ie. If I say the best I can do is 40mpg. I assume if someone in an RX-8 tries their best, they will be cruising on the highway (ie. not rush hour), no excessive speeding, drive in highest gear, etc.

Southern Ontario is fairly flat, hwy speed limits are 100km/h(approx 62mph), but when there is no traffic, speeds are in excess of that. If I drive 110-115km/hr max + easy cruising in 6th gear, I can get my mileage up to 40mpg. I little more speed and 35mpg is usual.

From my experience with my 1982 RX-7, the mileage was also awful. I don't recall exactly what it was as it has been a long time, but I recall a conversation with a co-worker who had a V8 mustang at the time. We got very similar mileage. It sounds like the same holds true today and perhaps the RX-8 even has worse real world mileage than a current V8 Mustang.

Poor mileage and emissions was the achilles heel for the rotary engine. Mazda has solved the emissions, sounds like mileage issues are still to be solved.

Lets just hope Iraq oil comes on stream soon, or we're headed to $40 oil per barrel and gas guzzlers are not going to sell well. My heart is with the rotary engine and I want Mazda to succeed, but they still have some work cut out...

BillK, Why do you insist on putting everyone down that has a different opinion than you. All you seem to post is condescending attitude towards others. Give it a rest, will ya? I gotta side with BillK on this one. Canzoomer has been one of the most ineffectual whiners in quite awhile, and seems to relish his misery. He's done almost nothing other than whine on this forum, he's rallied no allies, gathered no team of lawyers, petitions, press briefs, etc. Alot of sour talk with no effective action.

Originally posted by ggreen29
I gotta side with BillK on this one. Canzoomer has been one of the most ineffectual whiners in quite awhile, and seems to relish his misery. He's done almost nothing other than whine on this forum, he's rallied no allies, gathered no team of lawyers, petitions, press briefs, etc. Alot of sour talk with no effective action.
Really?
OK, calling Mazda Canada, posting what they say, testing and reporting what my car does, and abiding by the handful of "I like my car so it is OK, even if it came with less engine, less warranty, and guzzles gas like a freight train" is "whining" ?

Fine.
I suppose, however that YOU have DONE something here?

Go get one, see for yourself when it is YOUR money on the line, and we will see what your story is then.

We seem to be divided into 6 categories here:

1) Got my car, love it, don't care if it is short of spec.
2) Got my car, not so happy about it. Taking the buyout offer.
3) Got my car, fairly happy about it, pissed off about being misled, and perhaps lied to. (This is my group)
4) Looking at buying an 8, deciding if I want to buy it or not.
5) Don't own one, probably can't afford one, just here because I want one. Don't enjoy my dream being crushed, and resent people who are not happy about it.
6) Got one, am bailing and no longer post and read forums (gone).

Guess which one you fit into?

MB builds some great quality cars, but the good ones seem to be at higher price points than most of us could even consider. I don't own an MB, looked at a used E for my wife a year ago, but decided that an Altima 3.0 SE would be a better long term purchase, since it would be new. It's been a great reliable car so far.

The reason we didn't go with the used MB were mostly subjective. I really liked the car, my wife didn't like the MB image (we become one of them). But the issue in my head was Damler's acquisition of Chrysler. When they did this, they assumed I believe close to $10Bil in debt. They started the acquisition process with surplus revenue (they had been a cash rich company).

Well, that $10Bil has to be made up in profits. Profits come from car sales, less car, more built in profit to close the gap....

I read in either CAR or EVO, can't remember which, about initial quality ratings. The metric was number of problems per 100 cars sold. The average was over 100, I think the number was around 120. MB was higher, can't remember the number, but I definitely remember it was more problems than average. Top quality was ... Lexus. They had less than 100 problems per 100 cars sold. Don't know exactly what the definition of "problem" was.

My humble opinion is that MB is not the company they were a couple decades ago. They have a great reputation for quality, but the collected data doesn't support that.

Cheers,

Monkey

The RX-8 puts down about 10% more power on my dyno than an RSX (189 vs. 172). Additionally, its torque peak is about 12% higher and comes on much sooner than the RSX's (which is kind of a double peaked torque curve).

I would expect the RX-8 to be faster off the line thanks to RWD and a bit faster on a roll as speed climbs since it shouldn't have any more aero drag than an RSX, but has more power. Overall it has more area under the curve (the RX8 that is).

Tha magazine numbers would seem to support that. The RSX usually traps around 93-94 mph in the quarter mile while the RX8 seems to be in the 95-96 range with the limited data we have so far.

SC

Originally posted by aussie77
I will qualify my comments by saying my RX-8 hasn't come in yet, so what I will say comes only from my two test drives.

That said, last weekend I test-drove two cars. The 200 hp Acura RSX Type-S and the Mazda RX-8. The RSX weighs 2767 lbs, the RX-8 comes in at 3029 lbs (just pulling the weight numbers from yahoo autos).

Now I have to say the RX-8 felt much more powerful to me in my two test drives. I had a chance to open both cars up a bit on some back roads that were fairly straight, and the difference was noticable despite the very smooth acceleration of the RX-8. The RSX v-tech kicks in and the acceleration is obvious. But of the two the RX-8 definitely seemed more powerful and faster.

Now go figure that the RSX is quite a bit lighter, and I don't know how much faith I then put in Dynos. I mean they are essentially a benchmark, but nothing more than that. Dyno all the cars you want, but isn't it the real performance numbers that are important? 0-60 times, slalom times, 1/4 mile times, stopping distances?

Originally posted by ChurchAutoTest
The RX-8 puts down about 10% more power on my dyno than an RSX (189 vs. 172). Additionally, its torque peak is about 12% higher and comes on much sooner than the RSX's (which is kind of a double peaked torque curve).

I would expect the RX-8 to be faster off the line thanks to RWD and a bit faster on a roll as speed climbs since it shouldn't have any more aero drag than an RSX, but has more power. Overall it has more area under the curve (the RX8 that is).

Tha magazine numbers would seem to support that. The RSX usually traps around 93-94 mph in the quarter mile while the RX8 seems to be in the 95-96 range with the limited data we have so far.

SC




The RSX-S is 262 lbs lighter and about 300 lbs. lighter if you take the spare out (as most RX8's won't have the accessory spare and tools). Thus, its about 9.5 % and 11% lighter based on these two measures.

I'm not sure if the dyno's take gearing into account or not, but if not, then that would be an interesting variable to look at.

The weight difference is exactly my points. People are ranting about the 8 having what appears to only be 210 hp or so. But if it is 300 lbs heavier, and only has 10 extra hp, how could it be faster? Riddle me that :)

I'm an "acura guy" but it's true that the rx8 has higher gearing which is going to increase the torque to the wheels.(dynos are done in the 1:1 gear) Do you have a dyno of the 189hp rx8? I'll i've seen are like 170-180 which is nearly identical to what stock rsx-s put down.(a little higher in each which will be accentuated by the better gearing) The best indicator of performance is time slips and in that department rsx-s user are getting nearly identical slips to those with rx8s. Low 15s to high 14s stock.

As a side note the rsx-s get huge gains from an engine reflash. It smooths out the torque curve so it's esentially flat 2000rpms to redline. A BPU rsx-s can run with a s2k. Here is a dyno from the company hondata which has been duplicated by users.



http://www.hondata.com/images/k20baselinevstuneddyno.gif
12-20 peak wheel hp from a stock RSX depending on the dyno and modifications.
15-20 ft/lb torque increase between 2500-3500 rpm.
Peak torque now at 3200 rpm on an unmodified RSX.
Very flat smooth torque curve. 95% of peak torque available from 2500-8000 rpm.
Rev limiter optionally raised to 8600 RPM (see valve spring tech information).
VTEC point lowered to 5200 rpm for cars with intake systems.
Passes Californian smog testing (no measurable difference from stock).
Fully dealer compatible - works with all Honda scan tools and equipment

I heard about the RX-8 announcement at the Tokyo autoshow and I immediately contacted my dealer to put my money down, probably before anyone else in the country. This was in December of 2001.

I am currently driving my 3rd RX-7 in a row and I haven't even owned a non Mazda rotary car in well over a decade. I love Mazda rotary engines and I jumped at the opportunity to get another one, especially a brand new one. When I saw the specs on the car and found out that the car was going to be available in the Spring of 2003 I was overjoyed. I read and knew all about the Carbon Fiber drive train components and how efficient it was supposed to be. I wanted to be the first person in town to own one, I wanted to drive my new sports car all summer.

I have never been willing to buy any car that was brand new, but I was more that willing to buy THIS car brand new.

I had no problem waiting until (what was supposed to be) the beginning of August instead of Spring so that I could get the color that I wanted (yellow). I had no problem when I found out the Navigation system wouldn't have maps for Edmonton for at least another 6 months. I had no problem when my dealer said that I'd be getting $500.00 and free service for 3 years from Mazda Canada, for what was described as a slight drop of around 9 horsepower.

After waiting the better part of 2 years from the time I put my money down to the time of delivery, (Wednesday of this week) my dealer smacked my car into concrete pillar. This was about an hour before I was supposed to come pick up my car. When I heard about this, I was dumbfounded and numb.

This pretty much burst the bubble on the new car. Summer is just about over, and will be over by the time this car is fixed. I'm not the first guy on the street with one, not by a long shot. I was not going to pay full list price for a broken and fixed car to only park it in my garage for the next 6 months waiting for Spring thaw. My honeymoon with the car I'd spent years waiting for was over before it even began.

To the dealers credit, I had no problems walking away from the deal. They agreed to refund my registration expenses without a flinch.

And now I find this forum, and find out that the RX-8, as it is currently configured, is really down over 20 HP, the engine falls down 2000 RPM before it's reported peak power point, and it is a gas guzzler to boot. (I'm just looking at the data posted here. No one has posted any numbers to the contrary, only subjective comments about how the car feels fast enough for them or that the car meets the gas millage when they drive slower than grandma).

I feel that by some divine intervention I dodged a bullet when the poor guy at the dealership hit that pillar. I'm going to plan B. You all can be the first to own and drive the RX-8.

I'm going to wait a while. Maybe there will be a bunch of cheap buyback models available soon. Maybe by next year, Mazda will have fixed the engine problems. Maybe in 2 years I'll buy one used and save a boatload on depreciation. Maybe in a couple years Mazda will be selling a model with a turbocharger/supercharger. Whatever happens, I'll still drive a Mazda rotary powered car and I'll own an RX-8 in the near future.

I don't want to own THIS RX-8 new.

Actually, by my estimates the RX8 is putting down 217-220 hp. It weighs less than 10% more than an RSX. Additionally, it has a superior torque curve = more area under the curve.

From a dead stop, RWD should be faster. On the roll, its about power, weight and drag. At higher speeds, drag matters more than weight. Thus, from 0-60 the RX-8 should launch harder and get ahead, and then at higher speeds, it should pull harder thanks to a better power/drag ratio.

In the grand scheme of things though, if you look at 1/4 mile trap speeds (which largely ignore the traction differences between FWD and RWD), the RX-8 is trapping 1-2 mph faster than an RSX, which seems about right to me for its power advantage.

SC

Originally posted by aussie77
The weight difference is exactly my points. People are ranting about the 8 having what appears to only be 210 hp or so. But if it is 300 lbs heavier, and only has 10 extra hp, how could it be faster? Riddle me that :)

I think we were comparing to a RWD sportscar like S2k before....now we're talking about "better" than a RSX-S...

kinda sad...
________
Triumph Tiger (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Triumph_Tiger)

I try and stay out of the subjective judgements.

In the grand scheme of things though, the RX8 is priced between an RSX-S and an S2000, so IMO there's nothing demeaning to the RX8 in making such comparisons.

Heck, the RX8 does so many different things and has such a unique combination of characteristics (4 doors, coupe shape, RWD, high revving powerplant, 6spd, low cost, etc.), you can probably legitimately compare it to more cars than just about anything else on the market.

SC

Originally posted by SomberGuy
IAnd now I find this forum, and find out that the RX-8, as it is currently configured, is really down over 20 HP, the engine falls down 2000 RPM before it's reported peak power point, and it is a gas guzzler to boot. (I'm just looking at the data posted here. No one has posted any numbers to the contrary, only subjective comments about how the car feels fast enough for them or that the car meets the gas millage when they drive slower than grandma).

Sorry to hear about the tragedy with the yellow.

HOWEVER - this is the internet, don't believe everything you read, and consider the sources of what's written.

ALSO - you obviously haven't read everything here. I personally have posted my fuel economy numbers for a 6600 km road trip from Calgary to Monterey (11.8 L/100km average, or 19.8 miles per US gallon, high of 23 MPG, equal to 28 MPG Imp.), and as I already reported, I certainly wasn't granny driving at any time on that trip. My car doesn't fall flat at 7K rpm, but has a nice kick from there to 9K. My AC is cold and doesn't cycle. The real tests like 1/4 mile times and trap speeds show that the car is delivering the performance that was promised, despite whatever results are turning up on private dyno tests. Those are objective measures. Subjectively? It's as fast as I expected/hoped for, and I am extremely satisfied with it. My only issue is with the floor mats with the hole in the wrong location (Canadian cars only), which certainly isn't a big deal.

Regards,
Gordon

Originally posted by Gord96BRG

HOWEVER - this is the internet, don't believe everything you read, and consider the sources of what's written.

ALSO - you obviously haven't read everything here. I personally have posted my fuel economy numbers for a 6600 km road trip from Calgary to Monterey (11.8 L/100km average, or 19.8 miles per US gallon, high of 23 MPG, equal to 28 MPG Imp.),
Regards,
Gordon

Care to explain how you get from 11.8L/100km to 28MPG again? Did I miss something? I am getting 20.04767MPG for 11.8L/100km.

Originally posted by Skyline Maniac


Care to explain how you get from 11.8L/100km to 28MPG again? Did I miss something? I am getting 20.04767MPG for 11.8L/100km.

Yes, you missed my location. Before Canada joined the rest of the world using metric measures, we used Imperial gallons, which is what the abbreviation Imp. stood for.

Please note that I did say specifically "11.8 L/100km average, or 19.8 miles per US gallon" for the overall average.

The highest mileage I acheived was about 23 MPG US, which is equivalent to 28 miles per Imperial gallon.

Regards,
Gordon

Wow. Somewhat way off topic here.

What are moderators for?

Road & Track that came out recently, had a list of all the new 2004 and the RX-8 came up saying 207. I'm not exactly sure what the #s are for auto/manual, but this is showing that atleast one mag is now showing the real power of the RX-8 right?

no, auto was claimed at 207 and m/t 247
now it is 197 auto and 238 manual

Originally posted by joebobanaught
Road & Track that came out recently, had a list of all the new 2004 and the RX-8 came up saying 207. I'm not exactly sure what the #s are for auto/manual, but this is showing that atleast one mag is now showing the real power of the RX-8 right?
Kind of puzzling actually.
If they mean at the crank, it is a bit lower than what even the pessimists are saying.
If this is supposed to be at the wheels, it is higher than what anyone has reported.
Maybe they picked that out of a hat?

3 fellows on the Canadian east coast did a dyno test tonight.

See this thread page:
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10602&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

Best was 168hp, and one, with lower mileage, made 158hp

ouch

The car is fast. Faster than most on the street. My buddy and I took our cars out tonight for a test to settle our debate. He has an 01 Vette with CAI and Borla cat back exhaust which, for the dyno reading geeks, would give him about 370 hp or thereabouts. Stock I hung with him without trouble on the freeway but expectedly he killed me on rolling starts but the story was different from a dead stop. Until I shifted into 3rd he had no chance at all. The 8's problem is not in the low end, (which I haven't heard or read any complaints about) it's in the middle of the RPM range. Ofcourse I was down alot in the hp compared to the vette and down in torque on the upper end. But then if I'd have spent 40K on a vette I wouldn't be here typing right now. I'd be sending thoughts by snail mail and recycling cans to make my payments. But don't be fooled by nay sayer and dyno's this car will keep up with much more expensive makes. I easily stayed with a Z7 a few days ago in La Jolla and he was trying to lose me up Torrey Pines. I'd be pissed if I paid that much for a sports car and couldn't totally smoke a car that cost less than I paid in taxes on mine. I'm more of a "seat of the pants" driver when it comes to speed, it feels fast as shit off the line but just fizzles when you need to close with the big boys at the strip. Besides, drag strips are where these things issues are decided; not dyno's right? I don't give a shit what the computer says. The car doesn't drive itself on a roller in a vacum environment. I'll be taking my digicam out to the track and street with me and I'll post just how slow the 8 is when the chips are down, that's the true test anyhow. I'm sure this car will come alive with a header and exhaust system and a CAI. So maybe 3K in parts and you can get what you feel you've been slighted. If you were looking for a the fastest car on the street you should've looked elsewhere and expected to spend more money than you did if you have any sense at all. It's fast for the money and it's damn good looking and I don't know about where you live but here in SOCAL it's still a rarity to see on the streets and it gets lyou ooks like you're in a Ferarri and when the road gets twisty it goes like mad, in fact better than the vette and with way less drama. This is not the first time I've had it on the streets with the vette and nobody even notices the vette when we're out. And I can have 3 friends along for the ride. Does it have quirks.... absolutely. Does it have power deficeits...... yes. Can it be modified to a fire breathing street slayer.... you bet. Just give it time. You can make anything go as fast as you'd like by throwing money at it if you're so inclined but this car is an excellent starting point for street tuners and it's got looks....... man does it have looks. RSX is as ugly as they come, I'll give the S2K props, it's one pretty car and a drop top to boot but still not in the same category as the 8. It's sensible performance folks, that's just not found anywhere else. RWD with near perfect handling and all the creature comforts for not much money if you know how to shop. Where's the competition?

Just finished the first few dyno pulls on the new car!!!

stock... 188.4 hp and 137 torque on 93 octane
removed the air filter and used VP 103 octane unleaded
and made 196.2 hp and 139.5 torque

pretty zany Ito. welcome, from "the other other" forum ;)

i'ma keep all these in one thread.

Originally posted by sandiegorx8
RSX is as ugly as they come, I'll give the S2K props, it's one pretty car and a drop top to boot but still not in the same category as the 8. It's sensible performance folks, that's just not found anywhere else. RWD with near perfect handling and all the creature comforts for not much money if you know how to shop. Where's the competition?

I'll go with you, except for your RSX opinion. I don't see it as ugly, its an edgy looking car, and with its own virtues. Remember its a FWD, and Im still to hear from people complain of its handling.

Also, I don't think the S2K is pretty...its darn functional, and even in some ways slick (I think the 8 got the final touches the S2K is still missing -from a style perspective). Small tires, mid-sized chassis, and wide stance: little compromise between comfort and performance; are all qualities the S2K has to offer.

But at the end of the day, the 8 suits me better.

Originally posted by wakeech
pretty zany Ito. welcome, from "the other other" forum ;)

i'ma keep all these in one thread. Thanks. Soon Ill install a Heador and high flow cat with some more mods and ill dyno again. I'm looking forward to see what type of numbers the stock engine could put down with a few mods.

Next time you try 'racing' a solara or whatever, maybe turn off the DSC/TSC, wouldn't surprise me that that is what was holding you back..

Originally posted by revhappy
That equals from 202 - 209 Crank HP assuming a 17% drivetrain loss. Using Mazda's figure of 238 HP that would be about a 27%-30% drivetrain loss. The difference between this and many of the others (done at 93 octane I think) is about 5- 10 WHP, which seems to make sense.

There is no way this engine is spitting 238 HP at the flywheel or that carbon fiber drivetrain was one big waste of money!! These numbers all seem to be consistent with my view that the RX8 felt about as fast, if not a bit slower than the RSX Type S and Celica GTS.

In regards to the comment about a Celica GTS. Here's a dyno of a 2ZZ with the following mods...
(everything else being stock)
1cold-air-intake (injen)
2port matched oem exhaust manifold
3race exhaust (trd)
http://alaniztechnologies.com/images/2zzheadermoddyno2.jpg

Time to make some SERIOUS PERFORMANCE!

Here is the way:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6256&item=2432601336#ebayphotohosting

http://www.warehousemotors.com/store/viewer.asp?image=253-40230-1480.jpg

thats so stupid its not even funny

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

It sure is funny to me!

canzoomer: So thats what your trading in your RX-8 for, eh ? :)


PS. Thats just awesome. All the race-types here at work loved it.

man o man.....I first saw this hours ago and I'm still laughing my ass off!

Somebody has to dyno their automatic. What if automatic gets 160 HP at the wheels and like 140 ft. pounds of torque?

HAHAHA. All of you 6 speed owners would be MADD! :D

Nope, this is the bomb. I have to get this car:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6256&item=2432738433#ebayphotohosting

Dukes of Hazard meets Fast and the Furious. Somebody buy it quick before the word gets out in the ghetto. shizzle ma nizzle yo!

That car does make like 250 hp