A/T or M/T
 

Hey guys I was considering buying a New 8. Atm I can only drive an A/T bt I so want to learn and buy a M/T. If I am going to buy an M/T I can buy an 05 bt if I am buying an A/t it has to be an 06 since it has the new 6spd tranny.

Also I want to turbo the car once it is out of warranty.

O I live in Atlanta, GA so traffic does get busy a lot. So whaddya say? If the performance is near the same then I'd just get an A/t bt if M/T really makes a big diff then I guess I'd have to learn it and then buy it :)

M/T... we've discussed this before on this site. I've never driven a manual prior to my 8. It's real easy

It's my first manual car, and I have been fine with it. Driving stick is easy.
And I live in NJ, the traffic state

and as for the turbo....you got about 4 years to think about it.

Buy a MT car - you'll be FORCED to learn.

I'm going to be the first to admit that I was stupid for buying the Automatic RX8 at first. Cause a couple months later I was in the dealership test driving a MT. After the test drive I was driving home in a new 6 Speed MT RX8.

There is a pretty noticeable difference in the acceleration. Though I haven't driven a 06 AT with the new tranny, I can pretty much guarantee the MT will still hand it to the AT.

Don't be stupid like me and buy the AT and then wish you had the MT. Then you might have to go out and buy an MT like I did. Save yourself the trouble and learn how to drive stick. Its really not that hard.

Plus MT are more fun to drive. :ylsuper:

The difference between the AT and MT RX-8 is probably more than most cars because of one major thing -- the missing 1.5k rpms. The MT revs to 9k whereas the AT only goes to 7.5k meaning you lose out on a good amount of fun (if nothing else).

Don't get pressured into getting a MT because of all the tough guys around here. Find a way to learn how to drive stick (friend's car, rental, etc) and drive around town in your normal routine (once you get good). Take both the MT and AT out for a spin and see what you think. You don't have anything to lose.

Having said that I have two friends with 8's and they both learned to drive MT after they bought MT 8's. Seems to be a pretty forgiving car.

my first manual...took me a few days to learn how...and I havent stalled in a few months or grinded. Get the M/T.

Didyousearch.

yeah, i drove it home from the dealer and stalled on hills and in traffic. I live in NYC where traffic has gotten worse over the past couple of years. I thought this car was real easy for a stickshift compared to others i've test driven (g35 coupe, 330ci, etc.)

[QUOTE=saturn]The difference between the AT and MT RX-8 is probably more than most cars because of one major thing -- the missing 1.5k rpms. The MT revs to 9k whereas the AT only goes to 7.5k

Big mistake. The original AT was rev-limited because the tranny was a tweaked version of an old model, and couldn't spin any faster. The new 6-speed can, so the engine that goes with it moves from 197 to 212 hp, and up to, if I recall correctly, 8,200 rpm. Chances are, the new tranny also shifts more positively than my kind of sluggish 2004 AT.

Mitch

[QUOTE=Mitch Strickler] And your proof of 8,200 redline?

Depends on how you want to use it - if you are going to modify it and race it - then learn stick, if you are going for comfort and handling the automatic with the manual option will be a pure pleasure. I have driven stick for over 40 years, trucks, ambulances, duce and a half, and my beloved and abused Mazda 323 - so I tried an 04 stick thinking it would be an easy do and hated it! It ran like an old Ford system with little sticky points and just the wrong leverage. I was really surprised! So I went for the automatic/ manual reluctantly. Was surprised, liked the wheel paddles and ability to change from manual to 'wheel stick'. Ability to change systems on the fly a real grace note. Had all the zip and then some for crusin' and I still haven't found the bottom to the speed. If you are young and want to take it on the track then do stick, if you simply want to drive a great car with grace and ease (but which can still burn up a punk or two or get onto a freeway without pain because you got the speed when you need it) go automatic. I recommend that you try both and find where your comfort zone is! :ylsuper:

I test drove the A/T w/ Manual mode and that thing revved all the way past 8K and gave me that beep to upshift so I assume its pretty much the same as the M/T,

My Q is if the diff betn the AT and the MT in terms of performance for the 06 is not much then I would go for the AT bt if it was a previous year I would get the MT hands down.

Learn stick on the test drive. It's not yours, so what do you care? Then buy the MT so you can be a tough guy like the rest of us. :rock:

I did it too I bought an AT first and in thke next 3 months I was at the dealership trading it in for a 6spd. The power is very noticeable, you will not be disappointed. I guarantee it.

Guess I'll have to take your word for it. The Mazda website says the AT's redline is 7,500 even for 2006. My guess is that fuel cut-off is around 8k. The MT has a fuel cut-off around 9.5k I believe so you're still down 1.5k rpms.

Can you give me the link to that information, thank you

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/pdf/..._specs_RX8.pdf

Search for "redline".

Hmm dammit, maybe the AT beeps past 7.5K whereas the MT beeps at 9K. Looks like I may have to buy it then learn to drive it..lol

MANUAL - this was also my first manual and i love it. Dont buy an auto and regret it down the road!

None. I apologize for depending on my recollection of early articles about the 2006 AT.

Now, on to some of the very strange things about Mazda's current spec for the engine -- 212 hp in the Mazda brochure, although I saw 210 in another Mazda spec, developed at 7500 rpm, and 159 lb torque at 5500, from a 6port engine Neither of these Mazda sources mentioned a redline.

Strange things?

1. The 2004-5 AT developed 164 lb torque at 5000. That made sense, because it was a 4port, instead of the 6port manual that had lower torque down low but allowed better air flow at higher revs. So why would Mazda spend extra for a 6port on the AT just to get max power 300 rpm higher? The first AT developed its hp (first announced at 210, lowered to 207 on the delivery sticker, then to 197) at 7200, with a 7500 redline. Which gets us to the next strange thing, though not from Mazda.

2. I believe a comparison of 2006 redlines is made, 9000 and 7500. Apples and oranges. The MT's 9000 is not at max hp; that comes at 8500. 9000 is the redline. So the comparable max-hp revs are 1000 apart.

3. Now, the 8,200 redline for the 2006 AT is just something I vaguely remember from an earlier writeup, and I shouldn't have mentioned it because I didn't have a source. And I wish I had found a quick reference for that number. So far, I haven't.
But think about what's likely. The MT redlines 500 rpm above max hp. The 2006 AT is also 6port, so it makes sense that it would redline 500 higher, too -- 8000. Besides, there's a lot of extra hp to account for in the AT. Remember, both ratings were reduced under the new system Mazda and others used this year. The MT went from 238 to 232. So the old AT would have rated about 192-3 this year. That means you have to find 19-20 hp in the combination of better air flow and higher revs. It sounds pretty reasonable that 200 more revs may have been added to get that result, bringing us to 8,200.

Mitch

My apologies -- but there is still something strange
 

I didn't use the search on Mazda's specs, so I didn't see the really strange fact that they list 7500 for both max hp and redline on the 2006 AT.

I actually owned a car whose manufacturer said something similar -- a '56 VW bug. Drive all day at top speed of 110 kph (68 mph) !! That wasn't quite a redline, and there wasn't any cutoff, it was just that the carb and air passages were so choked that the engine ran out of power at that speed, which was about 3300 rpm. If you get tailwinds or a long downhill, you could run it faster.

Back to modern times, when have you seen a spec with identical hp and redline? I really wonder what's going on. If there's a reason for this strange design, you'd think the car mags would have picked up on it in their reviews of the old and new AT.

I will now sign off and wait for people with more facts to explain what Mazda has done.

Mitch
PS I double-apologize for the last bit about 200 revs -- it was nonsense.
M

^ It's all about area under the curve -- not max torque or horsepower.

Please explain more fully. You wrote earlier that a major difference between MT and AT was the 1500 rpm difference in redlines. So what is the "it" you say it's all about? If you are talking about straight out performance, "it" usually conforms very closely to hp; keep the revs up to where the engine produces the most work, and the results vary pretty much by hp. Because you have to shift as you accelerate, the amount of torque available at the rpm an upshift leads you to is also significant, which is another aspect of the shape of the torque curve. But you don't say which curve you are talking about.

In addition, I would really like someone to explain to me why Mazda would set up an engine with the same port design as the MT to have NO margin between hp max and redline? It's a one in 10,000 spec (if not a typo). Mazda owes an explanation.

Mitch

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. The MT has 1.5k more rpms which is, as I stated before, more fun if nothing else. There's some performance there as well. Moreover, the gearing on the AT and MT aren't exactly the same.

From what I have read around the forum, the reason the AT is rev-limited at 7.5k rpms is because of limitation on the torque converter. I would imagine there are other factors in the transmission as well. They fact the redline and max HP happen at the same time is an unfortunate circumstance of the hardware.