Rx8 v. Z..I finally get it!
05-25-2004, 09:47 AM
#126
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
Is that really necessary? Funny. The more you post the more immature, irrational and unbalanced you become. Very much like the some of the owners on this forum you referred to as jerks. It's impossible to have a constructive argument with irrational people.
Is that really necessary? Funny. The more you post the more immature, irrational and unbalanced you become. Very much like the some of the owners on this forum you referred to as jerks. It's impossible to have a constructive argument with irrational people.
I've been calm, and has answered every questions/statement that you've made. No name calling or accusation has been made on my part.
05-25-2004, 09:53 AM
#127
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Dracon
wow... argue...
wow... argue...
05-25-2004, 09:57 AM
#128
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by shade
god, i dont know how anyone can like the Z its exterior is so plain and it seems like they tried to give it a too much futuristic look, same with the interior man, its ugly, but i do envy its hp but one advantage the rx8 has is that its much lighter so the same 100 hp for a Z would do much better on an 8
god, i dont know how anyone can like the Z its exterior is so plain and it seems like they tried to give it a too much futuristic look, same with the interior man, its ugly, but i do envy its hp but one advantage the rx8 has is that its much lighter so the same 100 hp for a Z would do much better on an 8
05-25-2004, 10:02 AM
#129
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
Electric, not hydraulic, power steering? (Toyota MRS had that already)
Carbon fiber driveshart? (350Z has that)
Frame backbone?
Pillarless four door? (Mercedes had that)
And much more on a $26K car that doesn’t steal parts from the parts bin.
Electric, not hydraulic, power steering? (Toyota MRS had that already)
Carbon fiber driveshart? (350Z has that)
Frame backbone?
Pillarless four door? (Mercedes had that)
And much more on a $26K car that doesn’t steal parts from the parts bin.
05-25-2004, 10:08 AM
#130
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TwoZooms
I drove both the Z and the 8 before settling on the 8. The Z is a good car, but it has a very different feel from the 8. Where the 8 is light, the Z is heavy. Where the 8 is delicate, the Z is brutal. And, yes, I can see where the Z, with its chunky lines and rumbling exhaust, could be viewed as more "masculine" than the 8's dramatic curves and refined engine. The 8's "feminine" qualities extend to the lighter clutch and gearbox and gentler ride, too. All told, the unique and innovative 8 spoke to me in a way that the Z did not, so I bought one. I love it!
I drove both the Z and the 8 before settling on the 8. The Z is a good car, but it has a very different feel from the 8. Where the 8 is light, the Z is heavy. Where the 8 is delicate, the Z is brutal. And, yes, I can see where the Z, with its chunky lines and rumbling exhaust, could be viewed as more "masculine" than the 8's dramatic curves and refined engine. The 8's "feminine" qualities extend to the lighter clutch and gearbox and gentler ride, too. All told, the unique and innovative 8 spoke to me in a way that the Z did not, so I bought one. I love it!
05-25-2004, 10:09 AM
#131
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's so shifty about the points I made? The 350z was a replacement for the 300z, the RX8 was the replacement for the RX7.
Sorry, perhaps you're not understanding what I wrote. Technology is the reason why we change our cars, phones and computers. When the 350z and RX8 came out, what were we expecting technologically wise? A faster car? A more efficient car? A different looking plenum?
The parts bin is an excuse that too many people uses when they really have nothing else to say. That's too bad. All companies reuses parts, you could be the richest man on earth (like Bill Gates) but still has enough brains to reuse current technology than to reinvent the wheel. Even Bill would reuse his codes to make future Windows.
It is what I've always thought it would be, a compromise that only Mazda (with Ford's help) could pull off.
It is truely an amazing engine
I've been calm, and has answered every questions/statement that you've made. No name calling or accusation has been made on my part. It is truely an amazing engine which is too often overlooked by people too small minded. Its also a shame that some owners on this forum has to be jerks.
Last edited by PaulieWalnuts; 05-25-2004 at 11:33 AM.
05-25-2004, 10:15 AM
#133
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hanzo
Electric, not hydraulic, power steering? (Toyota MRS had that already)
Carbon fiber driveshart? (350Z has that)
Frame backbone?
Pillarless four door? (Mercedes had that)
And much more on a $26K car that doesn’t steal parts from the parts bin.
Electric, not hydraulic, power steering? (Toyota MRS had that already)
Carbon fiber driveshart? (350Z has that)
Frame backbone?
Pillarless four door? (Mercedes had that)
And much more on a $26K car that doesn’t steal parts from the parts bin.
Wasn't aware the Z had a CF dirveshaft, thanks.
Which Mercedes?
05-25-2004, 10:25 AM
#134
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Shiri
I agree, but you should actually point out an unbias reason why the RX8 won in that shootout, despite have the lesser performance stats. That way, people can make up their mind on whether they want a fast true sports car, or a sports-car-like coupe with extra space.
I agree, but you should actually point out an unbias reason why the RX8 won in that shootout, despite have the lesser performance stats. That way, people can make up their mind on whether they want a fast true sports car, or a sports-car-like coupe with extra space.
05-25-2004, 10:28 AM
#135
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
What is Toyota MRS?
Wasn't aware the Z had a CF dirveshaft, thanks.
Which Mercedes?
What is Toyota MRS?
Wasn't aware the Z had a CF dirveshaft, thanks.
Which Mercedes?
I was thinking about the CLK320 Cabriolet with no B pillar but it is only a 2 door not a four, my mistake.
CLK320 Cabriolet:
The Toyota MRS:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/.../exterior.html
Last edited by Hanzo; 05-25-2004 at 10:30 AM.
05-25-2004, 10:31 AM
#136
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hanzo
I was thinking about the CLK320 Cabriolet with no B pillar but it is only a 2 door not a four, my mistake.
The Toyota MRS:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/.../exterior.html
I was thinking about the CLK320 Cabriolet with no B pillar but it is only a 2 door not a four, my mistake.
The Toyota MRS:
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/.../exterior.html
05-25-2004, 10:35 AM
#137
Originally posted by Shiri
The Z has great internal balancing, as you put it, but you have probably overlooked the fact that it was not designed specifically for handling alone. The immense power that comes with it tells you that. And with that power, you need a more rigid frame. It happens to every sports car that tries to add more power.
Some become more expensive than others because they use more expensive and more complicated components.
The Z carries more weight because of the power it produces. The RX8 produces less power because it has less weight to pull. Being a lighter car does make it seem light on its feet, hence the "supposedly superior handling" that some people keep raving on about.
Regarding tires, I guess that is a fair argument if the companies were trying to keep costs down. The Z was fitted with second rated tires as some owners on my350z can attest to.
The Z has great internal balancing, as you put it, but you have probably overlooked the fact that it was not designed specifically for handling alone. The immense power that comes with it tells you that. And with that power, you need a more rigid frame. It happens to every sports car that tries to add more power.
Some become more expensive than others because they use more expensive and more complicated components.
The Z carries more weight because of the power it produces. The RX8 produces less power because it has less weight to pull. Being a lighter car does make it seem light on its feet, hence the "supposedly superior handling" that some people keep raving on about.
Regarding tires, I guess that is a fair argument if the companies were trying to keep costs down. The Z was fitted with second rated tires as some owners on my350z can attest to.
The fact that I bought the RX-8 doesn't make me not want a Z, I still wouldn't mind having one, but it isn't practical right now as I'm planning to buy a house soon.
At any rate, I was commenting more about the way the Rx-8 was designed. If you look at a cross cut of the RX-8, you'll see the engine is almost on the ground, and it's placement is far behind the front tires. I can't imagine the 350Z being able to match the way the 8 was developed simply because it does not have a rotary engine. Giving that the 8 is lighter, that it was designed with it's mass so low and configured the way it is, I don't give much credence to anyone's claims that the 350Z out handles it given similar configuration in suspension and tires.
05-25-2004, 11:36 AM
#138
I see you
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
normally I would come down on you rather heavy, but....you clearly put a lot of thought into the post, snd it is not trollish in the least...fanboyish, maybe but that is what makes for sprited car debate. Let me address your points below, calmly
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shiri
[B]
And as for the original OP :
"I have never understood why we get so many nasty Z trolls, but I had a revelation today."
"NASTY Z TROLLS, show me. How do you know they are Z owners, or some other people trying to boost the page count for the advertising companies on these pages?"
Well, they claim to own the car, and their sure are a lot of them trolling about....like anything on the net, how do you really know what is legitamate or not? You have to take it on face value.
"The Z is good, real good, using current existing tech...nothing new or innovative, just the brute force approach...but it works."
The Z is not just good, it is excellent. It is using a combination of technology and true and tried methods of Nissan engineering to build perhaps the world's best 6 cylinder car, in a package that is a delight to the everyday sports car fans."
[Actually, I agree that th Z is excellent, and have gone out of my way to defend the car, especially the G35. I may not care for the interior, but that did not stop me from giving the car its props. I do think you go a bit overboard in how people like it.......The tire issue is a big problem, but hay, to each his own. ANd no, the car is not as "high tech" or inovative as th 8....that does not mean it is bad, just diffrent. oh, and the worlds best 6 cylinder car is the BMW M3.....
"The 350z is an NA vehicle, relying on neither turbos or
superchargers. Yet, its performance actually matches the previous Z model, the Z32 300TT, a twin turbo 3.0 litre sports car released in 1989 (and was the car responsible for forcing Toyota to push back its Supra release by another 3 years).
Judging by which car has progressed the most, technologically wise, the 350z has matched and even surpasses its predecessors. The RX8 has not."
Well, wrong. the 8 is superior to the 7 in some ways, and comes close in HP....but it was never ment or sold as a 7 replacement. Diffrent concept, so nothing to compare it to, really. The Z engine is a clasic powerplant, really a home run for NMC...just not inovative.....certianly not like the wankel is....again not bad, just not inovative.
"And without the serious problems that the Z has...(I do not consider the mpg or the HP a serious problem in a sports car, and the flash's have improved it quit a bit. Plus, mazda did more to make it right then any other car company does in this situation....Just look at how long it took nissan to fix the radio issue, not to mention the front end issue that is still not fixed!)"
I think from the word go, you set out the put Nissan and the owners into a bad light. Yet later, you deny it. "
Again wrong! If you look aver my 700 or so posts here, you will will see me saying over and over how much I like the g35. I do not like nasty Z TROLLS. since one actually threatened to injure my kids, I think I have a right to be a little harsh on Z TROLLS .
again, a troll is diffrent from a fanboy or enthusiast. As to Nissan, I own an xterra. I do not like how they have delt with my issues with the truck during the time I have had it, but the problems with the Z are more serious. Any company that takes yor 30k should stand behind the product and get it right! Mazda did, and still is. B/T/W how many tires, or "tyres" as they say overseas, have you replaced?
]
"The 8 is elegant in a design sense....any fool can put a huge engine in a car and have it go fast....it takes genius to do what Mazda did with the 8...perhaps the most unique mass produced car on the road. And that it what sets the troll off about our car."
Again, I think the fool you may be referring to is "Dodge" and their Vipers.... hang on, maybe you are actually bagging the Z once again."
How many times do I have to say I like the Z?....but, the truth is that it is easy to stick a big engine in a car and have it go fast....handeling, ride quality and braking ar diffrent matters....here the Z does a good job. Not the 8, but high end for sure.
"Well, actually I don't know what is so innovative about an engine that is only 1.3 litre in capacity and weighs less than a typical family car, yet uses more petrol than a 4WD vehicle and is smaller than a typical family car.
If it is a "sports" car, it has POOR performance. No petrolhead in their right mind would buy this car to go fast. It doesn't make sense. "
well, starting to get trollish here, but I will let it go....Sparky, cheak your gas gauge. MY friends G35 gets worse mpg then my 8. In fact, the 19 mpg I am getting now is better then my DSM GSX! All sports cars suck on this issue, it is a know quality, and the trade we make for performance.....the fact that the engine can put out what it does at its size, weight and relative simplicity(so few moving parts) makes it so unique, which IS MY POINT! You proved it. the most inovative powerplant in any car today, and you can not even acknowledge it. that is what drives the Z troll....tech envy!
But you are right, if all you want to do is go fast, get a Z, or a evo, or a GT, or a neon srt better yet. It is a balance thing, how the car does everything right that sets it apart. ask a lotus elan owner, I think you will get the same reaction.
"So perhaps its not really a "sports" car.
It is what I've always thought it would be, a compromise that only Mazda (with Ford's help) could pull off.
I actually like the RX8 and have defended it when I was on the S2ki forum, but to call it what it isn't is what causes threads like this to constantly pop up and beat the same dead horse all over again.
Its also a shame that some owners on this forum has to be jerks."
Well, How do I responded to this spew? hmmmmm i will take the high road. The car is what it is, we drove it before we bought it, and liked it enought to buy it......we must "get it". You should drive the car, then come back and tell us what you think. Maybe then you would "get it" This thread was never about the Z as a car...It was about how the Z posters here tend to be nasty, trollish and rude. You kind of fell into this area with your last paragraph, but most of what you said was fairly thought out, so I will let it slide........because you proved my original point. I do think it is odd that you show up in the honda forum, this forum, the Z forum....DO you even own any of the cars? hmmmmmm. NOW GO HAVE AND ICE TEA, (or a pint) CALM DOWN, AND THINK THINGS OVER.[COLOR=red]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shiri
[B]
And as for the original OP :
"I have never understood why we get so many nasty Z trolls, but I had a revelation today."
"NASTY Z TROLLS, show me. How do you know they are Z owners, or some other people trying to boost the page count for the advertising companies on these pages?"
Well, they claim to own the car, and their sure are a lot of them trolling about....like anything on the net, how do you really know what is legitamate or not? You have to take it on face value.
"The Z is good, real good, using current existing tech...nothing new or innovative, just the brute force approach...but it works."
The Z is not just good, it is excellent. It is using a combination of technology and true and tried methods of Nissan engineering to build perhaps the world's best 6 cylinder car, in a package that is a delight to the everyday sports car fans."
[Actually, I agree that th Z is excellent, and have gone out of my way to defend the car, especially the G35. I may not care for the interior, but that did not stop me from giving the car its props. I do think you go a bit overboard in how people like it.......The tire issue is a big problem, but hay, to each his own. ANd no, the car is not as "high tech" or inovative as th 8....that does not mean it is bad, just diffrent. oh, and the worlds best 6 cylinder car is the BMW M3.....
"The 350z is an NA vehicle, relying on neither turbos or
superchargers. Yet, its performance actually matches the previous Z model, the Z32 300TT, a twin turbo 3.0 litre sports car released in 1989 (and was the car responsible for forcing Toyota to push back its Supra release by another 3 years).
Judging by which car has progressed the most, technologically wise, the 350z has matched and even surpasses its predecessors. The RX8 has not."
Well, wrong. the 8 is superior to the 7 in some ways, and comes close in HP....but it was never ment or sold as a 7 replacement. Diffrent concept, so nothing to compare it to, really. The Z engine is a clasic powerplant, really a home run for NMC...just not inovative.....certianly not like the wankel is....again not bad, just not inovative.
"And without the serious problems that the Z has...(I do not consider the mpg or the HP a serious problem in a sports car, and the flash's have improved it quit a bit. Plus, mazda did more to make it right then any other car company does in this situation....Just look at how long it took nissan to fix the radio issue, not to mention the front end issue that is still not fixed!)"
I think from the word go, you set out the put Nissan and the owners into a bad light. Yet later, you deny it. "
Again wrong! If you look aver my 700 or so posts here, you will will see me saying over and over how much I like the g35. I do not like nasty Z TROLLS. since one actually threatened to injure my kids, I think I have a right to be a little harsh on Z TROLLS .
again, a troll is diffrent from a fanboy or enthusiast. As to Nissan, I own an xterra. I do not like how they have delt with my issues with the truck during the time I have had it, but the problems with the Z are more serious. Any company that takes yor 30k should stand behind the product and get it right! Mazda did, and still is. B/T/W how many tires, or "tyres" as they say overseas, have you replaced?
]
"The 8 is elegant in a design sense....any fool can put a huge engine in a car and have it go fast....it takes genius to do what Mazda did with the 8...perhaps the most unique mass produced car on the road. And that it what sets the troll off about our car."
Again, I think the fool you may be referring to is "Dodge" and their Vipers.... hang on, maybe you are actually bagging the Z once again."
How many times do I have to say I like the Z?....but, the truth is that it is easy to stick a big engine in a car and have it go fast....handeling, ride quality and braking ar diffrent matters....here the Z does a good job. Not the 8, but high end for sure.
"Well, actually I don't know what is so innovative about an engine that is only 1.3 litre in capacity and weighs less than a typical family car, yet uses more petrol than a 4WD vehicle and is smaller than a typical family car.
If it is a "sports" car, it has POOR performance. No petrolhead in their right mind would buy this car to go fast. It doesn't make sense. "
well, starting to get trollish here, but I will let it go....Sparky, cheak your gas gauge. MY friends G35 gets worse mpg then my 8. In fact, the 19 mpg I am getting now is better then my DSM GSX! All sports cars suck on this issue, it is a know quality, and the trade we make for performance.....the fact that the engine can put out what it does at its size, weight and relative simplicity(so few moving parts) makes it so unique, which IS MY POINT! You proved it. the most inovative powerplant in any car today, and you can not even acknowledge it. that is what drives the Z troll....tech envy!
But you are right, if all you want to do is go fast, get a Z, or a evo, or a GT, or a neon srt better yet. It is a balance thing, how the car does everything right that sets it apart. ask a lotus elan owner, I think you will get the same reaction.
"So perhaps its not really a "sports" car.
It is what I've always thought it would be, a compromise that only Mazda (with Ford's help) could pull off.
I actually like the RX8 and have defended it when I was on the S2ki forum, but to call it what it isn't is what causes threads like this to constantly pop up and beat the same dead horse all over again.
Its also a shame that some owners on this forum has to be jerks."
Well, How do I responded to this spew? hmmmmm i will take the high road. The car is what it is, we drove it before we bought it, and liked it enought to buy it......we must "get it". You should drive the car, then come back and tell us what you think. Maybe then you would "get it" This thread was never about the Z as a car...It was about how the Z posters here tend to be nasty, trollish and rude. You kind of fell into this area with your last paragraph, but most of what you said was fairly thought out, so I will let it slide........because you proved my original point. I do think it is odd that you show up in the honda forum, this forum, the Z forum....DO you even own any of the cars? hmmmmmm. NOW GO HAVE AND ICE TEA, (or a pint) CALM DOWN, AND THINK THINGS OVER.[COLOR=red]
Last edited by klegg; 05-25-2004 at 11:46 AM.
05-25-2004, 11:59 AM
#140
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Well, actually I don't know what is so innovative about an engine that is only 1.3 litre in capacity and weighs less than a typical family car, yet uses more petrol than a 4WD vehicle and is smaller than a typical family car.
Innovative: new and original or taking a new and original approach. See also ground breaking, pioneering, inventive, original, new. Hmmmmm (?)
Bump the Renesis up to 3.5 liters and you would have somewhere around 650 HP. I wonder what kind of MPG a 3.5 V6 would get at 650 HP. Or I wonder what kind of HP the same V6 would make at 1.3 liters - 100HP? Or maybe try and squeeze 238 HP natually aspirated out of that same 1.3 V6 and see what kind of MPG you get.
EDIT: yea, Klegg that was a pretty difficult read.
Last edited by PaulieWalnuts; 05-25-2004 at 12:04 PM.
05-25-2004, 12:30 PM
#141
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
I love that.
Innovative: new and original or taking a new and original approach. See also ground breaking, pioneering, inventive, original, new. Hmmmmm (?)
Bump the Renesis up to 3.5 liters and you would have somewhere around 650 HP. I wonder what kind of MPG a 3.5 V6 would get at 650 HP. Or I wonder what kind of HP the same V6 would make at 1.3 liters - 100HP? Or maybe try and squeeze 238 HP natually aspirated out of that same 1.3 V6 and see what kind of MPG you get.
EDIT: yea, Klegg that was a pretty difficult read.
I love that.
Innovative: new and original or taking a new and original approach. See also ground breaking, pioneering, inventive, original, new. Hmmmmm (?)
Bump the Renesis up to 3.5 liters and you would have somewhere around 650 HP. I wonder what kind of MPG a 3.5 V6 would get at 650 HP. Or I wonder what kind of HP the same V6 would make at 1.3 liters - 100HP? Or maybe try and squeeze 238 HP natually aspirated out of that same 1.3 V6 and see what kind of MPG you get.
EDIT: yea, Klegg that was a pretty difficult read.
05-25-2004, 12:44 PM
#142
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hanzo
Thought I read somewhere rotary 13B engines are consider by some to be a 2.6 L since one combustion cycle has 2 actual combustion.
Thought I read somewhere rotary 13B engines are consider by some to be a 2.6 L since one combustion cycle has 2 actual combustion.
05-25-2004, 01:09 PM
#143
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
Please provide support for your claims. I know what you're referring to but as an example, Honda has a CR80 and a XR80 motorcycle. They both have 80cc's of displacement but the CR is a 2 stroke and the XR is a 4 stroke. To the best of my knowledge CID is measured by total displacement, not displacement per full revolution and combustion cycle. It may make the equivalent output of a 2.6 but measuring it as such would be a totally different measurement system. Mazda posts 1.3L
Please provide support for your claims. I know what you're referring to but as an example, Honda has a CR80 and a XR80 motorcycle. They both have 80cc's of displacement but the CR is a 2 stroke and the XR is a 4 stroke. To the best of my knowledge CID is measured by total displacement, not displacement per full revolution and combustion cycle. It may make the equivalent output of a 2.6 but measuring it as such would be a totally different measurement system. Mazda posts 1.3L
05-25-2004, 01:42 PM
#144
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hanzo
I read it here and also from sports compact car magazine: http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html
I read it here and also from sports compact car magazine: http://www.rx7.com/techarticles_displacement.html
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...hlight=why+1.3
Scroll down a bit
Last edited by PaulieWalnuts; 05-25-2004 at 01:44 PM.
05-25-2004, 01:56 PM
#145
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
If you haven't already, you and anyone else here should read Rotarygod's "Why 1.3?" (and read it thoroughly). It's very long but extremely fascinating and compelling.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...hlight=why+1.3
Scroll down a bit
If you haven't already, you and anyone else here should read Rotarygod's "Why 1.3?" (and read it thoroughly). It's very long but extremely fascinating and compelling.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...hlight=why+1.3
Scroll down a bit
There are many benefits of why Mazda want to claim it being 1.3 L, I can think of several just off of top of my head.
- It will reduce import tax
- It will reduce domestic (in Japan) displacement tax
- It will give Mazda a good image having small displacement producing big power.
- It will reduce insurance for the driver. (NA version of it)
05-25-2004, 01:58 PM
#146
<p><
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Renesis was entered into the 2.5L - 3.0L category in the Engine of the Year awards, hence the idea that it actually behaves more like a 2.6L engine than a 1.3L. This makes a more accurate point when we're talking about thermodynamic efficiency but not when we're talking about how much power it makes per engine volume or weight:
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineofth...egories04.html
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineofth...egories04.html
05-25-2004, 02:00 PM
#147
Free Autographed Pictures
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: PRC
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically here is the summary of what I remember from RotaryGod's post. It has the power of a 2.6L (4 cylinder not V6 though) but can process fuel like a 3.9L which explains the worse fuel economy, yet it does this all in the size of 1.3L.
This engine did progress because it is much more powerful than the last NA 1.3L rotary. This engine is innovative because it's size allows it so sit low, behind the front axel, and not take up much space. Because it sits low it gives the car better handling responsiveness (something the RX8 did win in that motortrend article, it had the most responsive handling) and it is small enough to fit 4 adults into a car the size of a 911 carerra while being able to produce enough power for it to be able to at least compete with the Z around a track.
About going around a wet track, all you need is to buy S03's as new tires because they are one of the best wet handling tires, and clarkson did say "there is something about these tires that make it awefully skittish on wet roads." S03's are only about $5 more per tire than RE040's.
This engine did progress because it is much more powerful than the last NA 1.3L rotary. This engine is innovative because it's size allows it so sit low, behind the front axel, and not take up much space. Because it sits low it gives the car better handling responsiveness (something the RX8 did win in that motortrend article, it had the most responsive handling) and it is small enough to fit 4 adults into a car the size of a 911 carerra while being able to produce enough power for it to be able to at least compete with the Z around a track.
About going around a wet track, all you need is to buy S03's as new tires because they are one of the best wet handling tires, and clarkson did say "there is something about these tires that make it awefully skittish on wet roads." S03's are only about $5 more per tire than RE040's.
05-25-2004, 02:20 PM
#148
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hanzo
I wouldn't discount what rx7.com has to say about why it's 2.6 L They are a very reputable rotary tuner. Also publications such as Sports Compact Car.
There are many benefits of why Mazda want to claim it being 1.3 L, I can think of several just off of top of my head.
- It will reduce import tax
- It will reduce domestic (in Japan) displacement tax
- It will give Mazda a good image having small displacement producing big power.
- It will reduce insurance for the driver. (NA version of it)
I wouldn't discount what rx7.com has to say about why it's 2.6 L They are a very reputable rotary tuner. Also publications such as Sports Compact Car.
There are many benefits of why Mazda want to claim it being 1.3 L, I can think of several just off of top of my head.
- It will reduce import tax
- It will reduce domestic (in Japan) displacement tax
- It will give Mazda a good image having small displacement producing big power.
- It will reduce insurance for the driver. (NA version of it)
Also, in that same thread TRZ750 summarized it fairly well - "6. The ENGINEERING METHOD to determine displacement is the swept volumn in one rotation of the output shaft. PERIOD. But as above there have been many arguments, especially in racing, that the rotary is really a 4 or 6 stroke engine. Mazda uses the accepted engineering method."
05-25-2004, 02:27 PM
#149
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PaulieWalnuts
Hanzo, I'm not at all discounting what they're saying. I think if you read the Rotarygod link I provided, you'll see the bigger picture as well as greater depth than what rx7.com provided.
Also, in that same thread TRZ750 summarized it fairly well - "6. The ENGINEERING METHOD to determine displacement is the swept volumn in one rotation of the output shaft. PERIOD. But as above there have been many arguments, especially in racing, that the rotary is really a 4 or 6 stroke engine. Mazda uses the accepted engineering method."
Hanzo, I'm not at all discounting what they're saying. I think if you read the Rotarygod link I provided, you'll see the bigger picture as well as greater depth than what rx7.com provided.
Also, in that same thread TRZ750 summarized it fairly well - "6. The ENGINEERING METHOD to determine displacement is the swept volumn in one rotation of the output shaft. PERIOD. But as above there have been many arguments, especially in racing, that the rotary is really a 4 or 6 stroke engine. Mazda uses the accepted engineering method."
05-25-2004, 07:09 PM
#150
Absolute Rotary Madness
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rotarian_SC
About going around a wet track, all you need is to buy S03's as new tires because they are one of the best wet handling tires, and clarkson did say "there is something about these tires that make it awefully skittish on wet roads." S03's are only about $5 more per tire than RE040's.
About going around a wet track, all you need is to buy S03's as new tires because they are one of the best wet handling tires, and clarkson did say "there is something about these tires that make it awefully skittish on wet roads." S03's are only about $5 more per tire than RE040's.
I think the test was good 'cause drivers didn't know which tire the car had on, and they tested all of them to the limit!
Test winner were the eagles f1, while conties and toyos were also great. On the wet best of all were the dunlops..... don't know much about tires myself but this is what i read (confusing isn't, everyone has different opinions in this matter!)