163-lb ft of torque sounds a little low. Almost Honda like. I just hope that 5-6 thousand RPM shifting aren't the norm for everyday driving. As fast as the Honda S2000 is, you have to work its engine way to hard just to keep up with traffic. I just would like for the RX-8 to have the low-end torque feeling similar to the G35 or BMW 330i. I can drive all day in my 330 without having the RPMs go over 4000. The car has nice low-end torque and by the time you hit 4,000 rpm you have more than enough speed. The car feels gutsy even at low rpms. I hope that the RX-8 doesn't require high revs to have a little fun. There is nothing like effortless speed.

you have to consider the rx-8 is made to spin fast.

4000 with a 6000 redline is two thirds

4000 with a 9000 redline is not even half way up the rpm range.

Well, from what you're describing, you will probably be disappointed.

---jps

It's nice to see that trolls are religious. :p

Originally posted by snow_tires
you have to consider the rx-8 is made to spin fast.

4000 with a 6000 redline is two thirds

4000 with a 9000 redline is not even half way up the rpm range.
yep there is still a loooong way to go:cool: :D

How am I a troll? Trolls don't leave their E-mail addresses.
Am I a troll because I'm complaining about the RX-8's lack of torque? Road and Track editor Sam Mitani said after driving the RX-8 that it needed more power down low. If the RX-8 is underpowered or has week torque down low, there are going to be A¡¦holes like "Quick_lube" or whatever the hell his name is calling everyone who complains about it a troll.

163lbft of torque ain't $hit. Considering that the car is going to weigh about 2900-3000lbs. If I wanted a car without Torque I would buy a Honda Prelude :) but that would be a big, big step down.:) Well, Maybe as a second car but never as my main ride.

Originally posted by Spoonie
Sam Mitani said after driving the RX-8 that it needed more power down low.

Maybe you should read what Mitani wrote again. He said the first prototype he drove had a lack of low end torque (I seem to recall this was in a renesis in a test-mule body), which he said should be corrected. The mazda engineers at the time said they were working on that. He *also* said that in his later test-drive of the pre-production model that the low-end torque was much improved, and it chirped off the line quite satisfactorily.

spoonie you need to look at the power to weight ratio. and the torque curves posted in other threads on this forum. do a search they are not hard to find. and last but not least- wait until it comes out and drive one. if it odesn't have the power you are looking for don't buy one. just remember that this is a 1.3l engine with weight less than most 4 cyl engines and power better than a lot of 6cyl and a 9000 rpm redline. stop thinking about it in terms of the piston engines you are used to. and by the way the weight will be under 2900lbs.
remember- it's not the numbers it's how it feels when your behind the wheel ( or maybe that should be "when your spinning the wheels" that way it rhymes ):D :cool:

As much as I love my S2000, the lack of any low end pull does bother me... enough to get a 350Z or Mustang, NO.... but it is a concern.

I plan on getting the RX-8 IF the low end is better than the S2000. From what I have read it looks as though that WILL be the case..... keeping my fingers crossed!!! :confused:

Buy a 350Z. You won't like the RX-8 if you think driving the S2000 is "work" because you have to use the shifter a lot. I call it "joy".

90% of peak torque on the 8 is available from 3250 - 9000 RPM. That, my friend, is a flat torque curve. Just because the peak number "ain't shit" according to you doesn't mean the car won't move down the road. If you are going to short shift it and lug the engine, you don't want this car.

Read the FAQ.

Torque numbers at the engine don't tell you anything. If you like, when you get an rx-8, change the numbers on the tacho. Scribble out 2 and write 1 all the way up to 10 (write 5). So the next time you go for a drive you can brag to your passenger - "look we're only at 1500RPM and it's pulling hard"

Alternatively write the rotor speed numbers (divide by three). You'll have a 3000rpm redline but god it will idle low. :)

-pete

Yes, you're a troll.

We already discussed gearing, weight, and the fact that this is NOT a piston engine.

Read the posts, get informed, then come back and make your comments. At least then we won't identify you as a troll right away, but our TDS (troll detection system) is at high alert for people like you.

Go get a 350Z if you want a torque monster, or a Mustang. I'll just see you in the twisties, okay?

Spoonie, welcome! I think you have a few misconceptions that we might be able to help with if you're willing to put in a little time reading some old posts. Since this has been covered in many many posts already, I'll provide the link that I think best explains some of the issues. To the other forum members, I *promise* that I won't post anything about torque on this thread other than links.

Try looking at this (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=361&perpage=15&pagenumber=2) thread. It goes into why a torque number of 162 lb. feet means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless you talk about gearing.

Second, if you've never driven a rotary engine, get ready for a treat when you rev it! Rotaties get more and more smooth as the revs rise. Even a fantastic engine like in the S2000 or the Maxima V6 (the closest to the 350Z engine that I've driven) gets harsh as the revs approach redline. Rotaries are the opposite. They start smooth and turn buttery as you get to 6k and above. If you like to really drive (I don't ever shift before 5k in my non-rotary car), you'll love reving a rotary. If you want to pull tree stumps at 1k, you simply won't like the RX-8. It will have more (a lot more!) low end grunt than you think based on the 162 lb. feet of torque, but it's not going to be like the 350Z or a 330i. It should be every bit as fast (and I expect faster in the twisties) but it might take more driver involvement than those cars to get the most out of it. To me that's the pleasure of a real sports car over a GT, muscle car or sport sedan, but it's certainly not for everyone. Hopefully looking around here will help you get a feel for if the RX-8 is a car you should have on your test drive list. It's certainly not a car for everyone, but should be pure nirvana for those of us it was designed for.

I hope that helps! If it doesn't, please ask more questions (preferably after looking around a bit more) and I'll be happy to give you more details, opinions and guesses.

Rotaries are silky smooth, they run at 5k rpm smoother then a piston does at 2k rpm. You will WANT to rev it up more then you are used to doing now. I HATED having to shift my rx7 at 8k, it was just getting gooood! :P

[MODERATOR HAT ON]

Those of you accusing Spoonie of being a troll need to relax. His post was nowhere near a troll question.

[MODERATOR HAT OFF]

---jps

You guys are getting nasty!!!
I really think his concern/question are valid.... I have the same myself. I have never had the pleasure of owning a rotary, so I am at a disadvantage when discussing engine specs/feel etc...

I love the S2000 on the open road & twisties, but I also commute in it at least 3 days per week... bumper to bumper gets "trying".

I am encouraged by the fact that you guys have repeatedly stated that the engine actually becomes smoother at higher RPMS. Anyone that has spent any amount of time in the S2000 knows that it becomes banshee like above 5500. Great on weekend drives... not so great at 6am on your way to work!!

Really, the best advice for Spoonie (or people like me) is to wait for it to come out and test drive it.

Now, let's all play nice!!!

:D

I appreciate all of the helpful responses (you know who you are). As for the rest of you guys; it’s a shame that when someone voices a legitimate deficiency they get so defensive. What? The RX-8 is God and should be exempt from all criticism? Be a man live with it. I could have done a search, but what about fresh ideas and opinions? And besides, the car isn’t even out yet. What else is there to talk about?

Originally posted by Spoonie
I appreciate all of the helpful responses (you know who you are). As for the rest of you guys; it’s a shame that when someone voices a legitimate deficiency they get so defensive. What? The RX-8 is God and should be exempt from all criticism? Be a man live with it. I could have done a search, but what about fresh ideas and opinions? And besides, the car isn’t even out yet. What else is there to talk about?

I agree that a number of people were overly harsh. However, you still appear to have missed the legitimate point that we've talked to death in the past the fact that the low peak engine torque number is in fact very misleading and not really a deficiency. As others have said, this is because wheel torque is what is relevant, and harping on engine torque neglects the advantages that gearing can provide if the engine has a high redline. Since you still refer this a "deficiency", I'm still not sure you understand this point. Perhaps I should add another question to the FAQ...

-Patrick

Originally posted by R.Cade
Rotaries are silky smooth, they run at 5k rpm smoother then a piston does at 2k rpm.

I need to see this for myself BADLY. If this is true and the gear-shift is sweet then nothing will stop me from getting the RX-8.

I agree with some of what Spoonie said: no car is perfect and there will be deficiencies even with the RX-8. However if Mazda does it right then torque should not be one of them - no matter what the numbers say.
Let's bitch about the BOSE stereo instead (I'll carry a boombox in the car to replace it)...;)

Originally posted by pelucidor


I need to see this for myself BADLY. If this is true and the gear-shift is sweet then nothing will stop me from getting the RX-8....

Go borrow someone's Miata for a test drive. Shift feel should be very similar (Aisin manufactures the 'box for both). Haven't been in another car that feels better to shift.

Originally posted by Grimace


Go borrow someone's Miata for a test drive. Shift feel should be very similar (Aisin manufactures the 'box for both). Haven't been in another car that feels better to shift.
BMW's have great gearboxes.. I haven't driven a Miata so I can't say but I'll take your word for it :)

Miatas do shift sublimely. Especially the 5spd ones. :)

Originally posted by BryanH
Miatas do shift sublimely. Especially the 5spd ones. :)
Why? Is the 6 spd gearbox inferior to the 5spd? Just curious, since the 8 is getting a 6 speed..

Hercules,

There is no comparison between the BMW's shiftbox and the Miata- the difference is really unbelieveable. Until I drove a Miata, I thought that shifters were supposed to be kind of jerky- on a Miata, you can practically flick it with your finger and in it goes. It's amazing. I keep telling my husband (who thinks his BMW shifter is easy too) that he should drive the Miata, and then he'll know what great shifting is.

:)

Originally posted by Quick_lude

Why? Is the 6 spd gearbox inferior to the 5spd? Just curious, since the 8 is getting a 6 speed..

Some people think the 6-speed is a little more notchy than the 5-speed. Most can't tell the difference. A little Redline oil in the turret seems to be a cure nevertheless.

Originally posted by Grimace
Go borrow someone's Miata for a test drive. Shift feel should be very similar (Aisin manufactures the 'box for both). Haven't been in another car that feels better to shift.

See my thread regarding Manual vs Auto in the Lounge about this...Oops you already have!

Originally posted by pelucidor
...Let's bitch about the BOSE stereo instead (I'll carry a boombox in the car to replace it)...;) Yeah, what he said!

---jps

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Why? Is the 6 spd gearbox inferior to the 5spd? Just curious, since the 8 is getting a 6 speed.. The 5spd shifts a little smoother and it's easier to find gears. First time I raced a 6spd Miata I had a lot of trouble finding 3rd gear at first. I prefer the feel of the 5spd, but the 6spd isn't bad at all. Just takes a little getting used to.

Since everyone is always trying to compare the S2000 torque to the RX-8 torque, I decided to try to draw up a comparison graph....at least as best as I could come up with.

For the RX-8 torque curve, I used the curve that has been posted many times on this forum already. I'm sure you've seen it, and if you haven't, you are about to see it now :)

For the S2000, I went over to one of the S2000 forums, searched for a stock dyno graph, and calculated the drivetrain losses (and subsequently the torque at the engine) based on Honda's published specs.

I have combined these two grahps into one sheet using my admittedly crude photoshop skills. What you will notice is that the RX-8 has as much or more torque throughout the entire power band. The eight has a notable torque advantage from 2500 to 6000 RPM, and thus, should be much more driveable than the S2000.

Comments?

R^3, thanks for the graph. Without the gearing, weight, and torque to about 1k it's impossible to really tell how they'll compare when you drive them. It's a cliche, but until we get to drive one it just won't be possible to really tell how the low end grunt feels.

Rich,

Don't downplay the importance of REALLY driving the car....to point that out is not cliche at all...it's realistic! You are absolutely correct to point out that all we can do is "bench race" at this moment in time. We will only know once we actually drive it...."The proof is in the pudding"....now THAT'S cliche :D

I hate the old cliche

"you can't have your cake and eat it".

Why else would I want the cake - to look at it?

Lets see in 1973 7000 rpm in an RX2 could
outrun the following(i did!). BMW 2002, alfa GTV.
Triumph TR6 from a stop all the way up to top end.

What did beat it? BMW 530i,240z,sunbeam tiger(ford289). RX2 Torque=102 ft/lbs.

year 1975 RX3 wagon could outdrag,outrun the Porsche 924. (HWY 50 to lake Tahoe).

RX3 Torque=100ft/lbs.

year 1986 FC RX7 Could outrun base(V6 mustangs,camaros) Could not outrun 5.0 Mustang
and IROC camaros

RX7 Torque=138 ft/lbs

year 1993 FD RX7 Outrun/outhandle most
every thing EXCEPT: Viper, new Vette and Some
late model 911,s RX7 Torque=215 ft/lbs.

it's true that the overall performance of the cars cannot be compared, but on paper we can still see the differences/strengths+weaknesses of each engine... i mean, the S2000 engine is a friggin' marvel of technology (from what i understand from what little i've read of the hard stuff), but just take a gander at the torque curve of the RENESIS... seriously, that's freaky stuff, still blows me away...