revhappy

Exactly. You are still missing the point. In the metrics I presented (acceleration, braking and handling combined with fuel efficiency), the RX8 consistently measured poorly against the competition. Clearly, if one of the figures used was an aberration then it would not fall within the pattern.

To me, it shows that the RX8 is too heavy a vehicle for this design. Of course, this is purely an economic viewpoint in the sense we are trying to determine the greatest area underneath two curves (performance and fuel efficiency). I fully realize this will not be the way most people will make a purchasing decison, as fuel efficiency will not be a significant factor and therefore would not be assigned a 50% weight. That being said, if a rotary-engined vehicle will produce less power for a given overall vehicle fuel efficiency, its going to be at a disadvantage from a performance point of view (and probobly in the marketplace). Everyone knows the rotary is superior (in sports car applications) at least in NA form, but its poor fuel efficiency limits its displacement (or perhaps the gearing) and is really the cap on its performance - as a production vehicle.

QUOTE]Originally posted by chenpin

Another problem is that these handling test often fail to deliver the "whole story". Case in point: Mclaren F1, .86g, 64.5 mph. The whole point is that you do not drive a spec. sheet. You drive a car, a highly complex machine that can't be described wholely by numbers. [/QUOTE]


Please read the earlier messages I wrote. I clearly wrote (in caps) these tests are useful "as a supplement" to subjective opinions. You keep on pulling the few odd-ball results to discount the ENTIRE test for ALL vehicles just because it suits your argument. I mean who knows maybe the driver of the Mclaren was hung over from the night before? Do you not think an RX8 that was lighter, had a more tightly tuned suspension, quicker steering, etc. would perform better on these tests?

QUOTE]Originally posted by chenpin

Doing that is a lot like....rating how much fun you have in bed by a woman's chest and dress size! [/QUOTE]

Really, you should use those ratings BEFORE you make that decision. Just Kidding. :D

QUOTE]Originally posted by chenpin

It really does. But I think that if the Renesis is any indication of Mazda's commitment, then we are in good hands. We'll just have to wait and see how well the RX-8 sells. Then we can continue this conversation. [/QUOTE]

I'll agree with you there. Mazda has a great reputation and deservedly so. There has been so much hype about how much cleaner (still waiting for the official EPA numbers) and fuel efficient this car was, but compared to its competition I don't think its made any improvement on the fuel efficiency front at least. Like it or not, this will likely be an important factor that will significantly impact future rotary vehicles. I hope they are successful because the wankel has so many benefits to offer.

chenpin

Wrong. This is where I have been trying to make my point. Maybe acceleration wise (cavet: high end acceleration has not been confirmed, "port problem") the RX8 measures poorly. But braking and handling wise it does just fine. Of course, I am not factoring in fuel efficiency as you've done (read next quote below). By your fuel efficiency factoring, a RSX would be a better choice than the RX-8.

ding ding ding! we have a winner. This is exactly how the average buyer (including me) thinks. Really, fuel efficiency is one of the lower considerations. #1 = Do I like it?

Exactly what I've been saying. "Supplement" which means that your "comparisons" dont give the whole story and thus are invalid to some extent. Oh, the Mclaren F1 was tested by several magazines and came out with similar numbers. So I don't "discount the entire test for all vehicles" (read evo vs. accord above), but I simply state these are really poor supplements. RX-8, i think, does not "kill" the competition (handling wise, we all know bout acceleration) b/c Mazda actually put some thought into ride quality. It's been described to be a good balance of sport and comfort. If you are looking for all out, then this is the wrong car for you...but I think you already knew that. For the rest of us, the car is fine.


Agree! :D

revhappy

Handling it does fine against bigger sports sedans, I agree. However, against true sports cars/rally cars, IMHO it is tuned too soft. I think it was Car magazine that said this about the RX8 when comparing it to the 350Z. Look at the turn to turn locks and steering ratio on the RX8 compared to the S2000 and the EVO:

Turns Lock to Lock:
RX8: 2.99
S2000: 2.43
EVO: 2.10

Steering Ratio:

RX8: 16.43:1
S2000: 13.9:1
EVO: 13.0:1

You will definitely feel that difference I can assure you. The bottom line is the RX8 is a closer match to the sports sedans (i.e. G35, 3 Series, etc.). I think a lot of people are of the impression that the RX8 is at the top of the ~ $30K class of sports cars in handling and its just underpowered. There is no free lunch as that nice ride quality and stability will cost you some of that knife-edged handling. Mazda makes light, nimble cars in the classes it competes in. The tricky thing with the 8 is that its being marketed as both a sports car and sports sedan, but its closer to the sedan IMHO.


I totally agree with you on the individual buyer level. However, before the car gets to you, a decision is made that is affected by fuel consumption. Whether its due to goverment regulation (i.e. CAFE standards, etc.), public image or the individual consumer, it really doesn't matter, the fuel consumption can not be ridiculous compared to the competition. So, it IS important that the rotary be efficient.

In terms of the competition, consider the following:

1986 EPA MPG EPA Greenhouse Gases (tons/yr.)
Supra 17/23 9.8
300 ZX 18/25 9.2
RX7 17/24 9.7

1995 EPA MPG EPA Greenhouse Gases
Supra 18/23 9.4
300 ZX 18/24 9.4
RX7 17/25 9.6

2003 EPA MPG EPA Greenhouse Gases
350Z 20/26 8.5
S2000 20/26 8.4
RX8 18/24 ??

So relative to its competiton, the renesis is actually worse now than it was before in terms of fuel efficiency. This gives those powerplants greater room for displacement increases, etc. The RX series must be significantly lighter to compete IMHO.



You keep pulling the Mclaren example to rationalize your position. Do you think the lotus elise, mosler and ferrari 360 modena aren't great handling cars? They are among the highest scoring cars on the slalom test. I would not automatically discount a car that does not pull out impressive numbers (i.e. miata, s2000). However, if the results are consistent with the qualitative comments, its a good indicator IMHO.

chenpin

Boy I am getting tired of stating the same thing over and over:

The Mclaren F1 example is just that, an example. It is not meant to "discount every other statistic". It is only meant to show one of the points listed below. Please don't exaggerate my words. The whole point of my last 3-4 post was to use examples to illustrate my opinion:

1. It is wrong to state that RX-8 is somehow subpar using your stats because:

a. Stats don't tell all (as even you've stated, ex. S2000, Miata).

b. The RX-8 is not closer to a sedan than a sports car as you've stated. This is taken from the uncountable reviews which state that the RX-8 actually feels like a true sports car and from reading impression of people who've actually driven the car! The car drives small! (some of you may know what I'm refering to ) In fact, I've read far more positive things then negative and even the negative comments were usually tempered with something else.

2. You are relying too much on numbers. How about, driving a F1 car as your daily driver? You could probably smoke pretty much everything, but I really don't think you would enjoy the car in the long run. Or how about a Z06? It beats just about every car you've listed thus far in terms of handling/mpg and/or accleration/mpg.

Somehow I thought my examples would get the point across. I guess I was wrong.

P.S. How about we let this off topic thread die, as I'm sure everyone is sick of it. If you want to continue, then we can communicate thru p.m.'s

revhappy

I agree, I'm done!

nicklevin1979

good point...and if everyone perfected a 5cyl engine, that would be in almost every car on the road.

UnknownJinX

15-year-old thread revival... This has to be a new record here.

Speaking of 5 pot, my buddy has a 1997 Volvo 850 with a small turbo on it. Slower than the 8 stock, but with some tuning and playing around they can get some good power. Pretty sure it's a lot faster than my 98% stock 8 now.

That said, his engine is leaking a lot of oil. Probably loses oil way faster than my 8.