View Poll Results: How much HP do you think the MT RX-8 has?
I feel the RX-8 really does have 238 hp and I own the car
35
30.43%
I feel the RX-8 has less than 238 hp and I own the car
38
33.04%
I feel the RX-8 has 238 hp and I don\'t own the car
17
14.78%
I feel the RX-8 has less than 238 hp and I don\'t own the car
19
16.52%
I don\'t know enough about the matter to really know one way or another
6
5.22%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll
Do you think Mazda is being truthful with the HP
who?!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: N. VA
Originally posted by Gord96BRG
You must not have been there for a while, though - are you familiar with the EUC III and EUC IV emissions specs? EUC IV is as tough or tougher than the US specs.
Regards,
Gordon
You must not have been there for a while, though - are you familiar with the EUC III and EUC IV emissions specs? EUC IV is as tough or tougher than the US specs.
Regards,
Gordon
who?!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: N. VA
Originally posted by Gord96BRG
You must not have been there for a while, though - are you familiar with the EUC III and EUC IV emissions specs? EUC IV is as tough or tougher than the US specs.
Regards,
Gordon
You must not have been there for a while, though - are you familiar with the EUC III and EUC IV emissions specs? EUC IV is as tough or tougher than the US specs.
Regards,
Gordon
then again, i don't even care. i know what i know and i won't be going back and forth to discuss matters that people don't have real practical knowledge off, just what is written...
who?!
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
From: N. VA
Originally posted by Blue 350z
Well now you know.. Now thats cleared up we can move on..
You mean to tell me that you HONESTLY think this person that ran a 15.16@91.96 with a 2.16 60' will run a 14.5 with a better launch and/or shift faster? You are the ones saying this run was the result of "poor driving". So do you honestly think that? That a 6000 launch vs a 8000 launch its worth .7?
If all was right with the car you should be running consistantly around 14.5-14.7 with the better launches netting closer to 14.5. You peole have no clue how to analyze timeslips
I can't wait till enough time goes by so I can say "I told ya so"
Well now you know.. Now thats cleared up we can move on..
You mean to tell me that you HONESTLY think this person that ran a 15.16@91.96 with a 2.16 60' will run a 14.5 with a better launch and/or shift faster? You are the ones saying this run was the result of "poor driving". So do you honestly think that? That a 6000 launch vs a 8000 launch its worth .7?
If all was right with the car you should be running consistantly around 14.5-14.7 with the better launches netting closer to 14.5. You peole have no clue how to analyze timeslips
I can't wait till enough time goes by so I can say "I told ya so"
blue honestly man give it up. This is not the place to discuss these. Take it to the track ! is what i say. Althought i am with you that there are actually other cars outthere that can outrun the 8 (and the z being one of them) most of these people won't even ever use their 8 on such matter. It will be luck if they can pick up a quick "run" in an split of a long highway with some other punk driving a tricked civic ( i did an accord and got wipped) but anyways not that we should but thats reality. The 8 doesn't have the acceleration because it doesn't have the torque, add things/change things to get better torque/power, and you will be driving an emission ilegal car and in an state where i am it is not feassable.
So blue as i try to say it is not worth you discussing here since you don't have an 8 either and MOST people here will be bias as MOST people in the Z's forums will be bias against other of your competitors (note i don't consider the 8 a Z competitior). If you have some to ssy in regards of runs and stuff, just take pics of sheets or video clips and post (period). that will do, anything else is "extra" and even if you do that, you will get heat as you will be rubbing it against 8 owner at their "home". I LOVE the 8, i soon won't be owner of it and i will always stick by the 8 BUT i don't ignore the reality or try to cover it up as MANY do. Its just my choice...anyways knowing peps here, i will get heat so i will stop... why can we all just discuss, not argue?!!?
Senior Geek
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
From: Richardson, TX
Originally posted by Blue 350z
Once again..
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Its not exactly rocket science driving a car down a track but you people act as if it is. When people run bad numbers all the excuses in the book come out such as (traction control, weight, weather, mileage, gas, ecu, exhaust, product defect, etc.....)
And a 2.16 is a good 60' and that run resulted in a 15.2@91.96 run.. But I guess hope is all you fella's got But eventually reality will set in.
Why don't you guys get off your collective asses and hit the 1/4? See what kind of numbers you come home with. I bet they will be nowhere near 14.5.
No matter how bad you launch you should come at least within .3-.4 of the target (and thats a really bad launch, like a 2.5+), you guys won't gain .7-.8 seconds simply from a 8k clutch drop.
I have completly bombed launches bogging and or totally smoldering the tires and even missed a gear in 115 degree track temps with high humidity and never ran worse then a 14.4@99!!
Once again..
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Its not exactly rocket science driving a car down a track but you people act as if it is. When people run bad numbers all the excuses in the book come out such as (traction control, weight, weather, mileage, gas, ecu, exhaust, product defect, etc.....)
And a 2.16 is a good 60' and that run resulted in a 15.2@91.96 run.. But I guess hope is all you fella's got But eventually reality will set in.
Why don't you guys get off your collective asses and hit the 1/4? See what kind of numbers you come home with. I bet they will be nowhere near 14.5.
No matter how bad you launch you should come at least within .3-.4 of the target (and thats a really bad launch, like a 2.5+), you guys won't gain .7-.8 seconds simply from a 8k clutch drop.
I have completly bombed launches bogging and or totally smoldering the tires and even missed a gear in 115 degree track temps with high humidity and never ran worse then a 14.4@99!!
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ght=time+slips
Registered
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,845
Likes: 1
From: Calgary, AB
Originally posted by U. N. O.
well dear gordon i was there about 2 month ago plus i lved there ALL MY LIFE having to go and pass inspections to all of my father's vehicles of the company, trust me i know
well dear gordon i was there about 2 month ago plus i lved there ALL MY LIFE having to go and pass inspections to all of my father's vehicles of the company, trust me i know
We're not talking about past emissions regulations that were in place 5, 10, or 20 years ago. We're talking about the new EU-mandated emissions regulations that have been recently implemented, that have required compliance for new vehicles since 2000 (Euro III) and will get much tougher for 2005 (Euro IV).
So you're not aware of the revamping of the fuel refinery industries to be able to produce the low-sulphur gasoline and diesel fuels that will be required for the implementation of the Euro IV regulations in Jan 2005? You aren't aware of the new generation of diesel engines being developed specifically for these new regulations? You aren't aware that they can't even market these new diesel engines (nor even the gasoline engines using direct injection systems) in North America because the sulphur content in our fuel is too high?
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude (as you do), but the Euro III regulations went into effect in 2000, and are not quite as tough as the US regs (and there is no OBD requirement as in the US). The tougher Euro IV requirements come into effect in Jan 2005, and have required years of effort to upgrade the infrastructures and engine designs to be capable of meeting them. It doesn't really matter that you grew up there in the years before this legislation came into effect - the regulations are real, whether you know them or not. Why don't you do a search for Euro IV and start reading about all the changes that have been implemented or are in the works?
Even relevant to RX-8 - Mazda downgraded the rated HP for the European markets because they decided to implement Euro-IV emissions compliance now rather than in 1 year.
If you think that the EU doesn't care about emissions then you are very sadly out of touch.
Regards,
Gordon
Last edited by Gord96BRG; Sep 26, 2003 at 02:41 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Originally posted by RX8-TX
According to you, this thread should be a fake, right?
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ght=time+slips
According to you, this thread should be a fake, right?
http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...ght=time+slips
I am not saying this is a fake, I just find it VERY fishy if coming from a guy with 1 post and a blank profile and registered the day before the post, anybody could of posted that under a fake account to try to quite the nay sayers. And most cars that can gain 24mph in the 2nd 1/8 usually run high 13's not 15 flat (that peticualr run).
I'd probably believe this 99% if there was a scanned time slip, the MPH gain in the 2nd 1/8 is almost consistant with somebody with a small shot of NOS, people that gain 24mph in the 2nd 1/8 usually put up about 80-82mph in the first 1/8.
Last edited by Blue 350z; Sep 26, 2003 at 02:58 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Man this forum is hostile!
I come from Is300.net and want to chime in on some of this....
All the people with the negative comments toward Blue 350Z need to chill. The guy knows what he is talking about and he has good points. All this smack talk is funny. Everyone needs to chill. We all love cars...sometimes things get heated.
A Stock IS300 5spd has 215 HP at the crank and 218 ft/lbs of torque. The car runs low 15's. Someone who is a member at IS300.net got a stock 5spd to run a 14.9, but he is a really good driver and now he has a Turbo IS300 beast.
The traps I am seeing with the RX-8 and the times are almost dead even with the IS300. The numbers are really close.
Now the IS weighs over 200 pounds more than the RX-8, but the torquey inline 6 helps the IS a little here.
This info shows the car is not making 238HP. It is making closer to 220. Or even 210 because of the weight difference between the IS and the RX-8.
Blue 350Z is correct in what he is saying. Instead of getting heated about it, just ignore the thread. I am sure other RX-8 owners would like know if their car is even shorter on HP than they believed.
I come from Is300.net and want to chime in on some of this....
All the people with the negative comments toward Blue 350Z need to chill. The guy knows what he is talking about and he has good points. All this smack talk is funny. Everyone needs to chill. We all love cars...sometimes things get heated.
A Stock IS300 5spd has 215 HP at the crank and 218 ft/lbs of torque. The car runs low 15's. Someone who is a member at IS300.net got a stock 5spd to run a 14.9, but he is a really good driver and now he has a Turbo IS300 beast.
The traps I am seeing with the RX-8 and the times are almost dead even with the IS300. The numbers are really close.
Now the IS weighs over 200 pounds more than the RX-8, but the torquey inline 6 helps the IS a little here.
This info shows the car is not making 238HP. It is making closer to 220. Or even 210 because of the weight difference between the IS and the RX-8.
Blue 350Z is correct in what he is saying. Instead of getting heated about it, just ignore the thread. I am sure other RX-8 owners would like know if their car is even shorter on HP than they believed.
Senior Geek
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
From: Richardson, TX
Originally posted by RussellP
Someone on this board with good driving skills needs to take their 8 to the track and settle this once and for all. This guy isnt showing any proof. All this could end with some proof.
Someone on this board with good driving skills needs to take their 8 to the track and settle this once and for all. This guy isnt showing any proof. All this could end with some proof.
Senior Geek
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,005
Likes: 0
From: Richardson, TX
Originally posted by Norcal
Man this forum is hostile!
I come from Is300.net and want to chime in on some of this....
All the people with the negative comments toward Blue 350Z need to chill. The guy knows what he is talking about and he has good points. All this smack talk is funny. Everyone needs to chill. We all love cars...sometimes things get heated.
A Stock IS300 5spd has 215 HP at the crank and 218 ft/lbs of torque. The car runs low 15's. Someone who is a member at IS300.net got a stock 5spd to run a 14.9, but he is a really good driver and now he has a Turbo IS300 beast.
The traps I am seeing with the RX-8 and the times are almost dead even with the IS300. The numbers are really close.
Now the IS weighs over 200 pounds more than the RX-8, but the torquey inline 6 helps the IS a little here.
This info shows the car is not making 238HP. It is making closer to 220. Or even 210 because of the weight difference between the IS and the RX-8.
Blue 350Z is correct in what he is saying. Instead of getting heated about it, just ignore the thread. I am sure other RX-8 owners would like know if their car is even shorter on HP than they believed.
Man this forum is hostile!
I come from Is300.net and want to chime in on some of this....
All the people with the negative comments toward Blue 350Z need to chill. The guy knows what he is talking about and he has good points. All this smack talk is funny. Everyone needs to chill. We all love cars...sometimes things get heated.
A Stock IS300 5spd has 215 HP at the crank and 218 ft/lbs of torque. The car runs low 15's. Someone who is a member at IS300.net got a stock 5spd to run a 14.9, but he is a really good driver and now he has a Turbo IS300 beast.
The traps I am seeing with the RX-8 and the times are almost dead even with the IS300. The numbers are really close.
Now the IS weighs over 200 pounds more than the RX-8, but the torquey inline 6 helps the IS a little here.
This info shows the car is not making 238HP. It is making closer to 220. Or even 210 because of the weight difference between the IS and the RX-8.
Blue 350Z is correct in what he is saying. Instead of getting heated about it, just ignore the thread. I am sure other RX-8 owners would like know if their car is even shorter on HP than they believed.
Registered
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,447
Likes: 0
Originally posted by IkeWRX
I don't know about anyone else but I'm a bit shocked by the results so far, I honestly thought that the majority of the people with the RX-8 would feel the car has 238 HP.
Ike
I don't know about anyone else but I'm a bit shocked by the results so far, I honestly thought that the majority of the people with the RX-8 would feel the car has 238 HP.
Ike
Thread Starter
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally posted by Elara
It only takes a few liars to skew a poll. There's no way to prove the people taking the poll OWN the 8, even though they claim they do. It's hardly a scientific measure of anything.
It only takes a few liars to skew a poll. There's no way to prove the people taking the poll OWN the 8, even though they claim they do. It's hardly a scientific measure of anything.
Ike
Thread Starter
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally posted by khoney
Gee, Ike, I feel left out... I wanted to vote, but you didn't include my category:
I feel the RX-8 has more than 238 hp and I own the car :D
Gee, Ike, I feel left out... I wanted to vote, but you didn't include my category:
I feel the RX-8 has more than 238 hp and I own the car :D
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Blue 350z
Sure i'll answer... Here's is my honest opinion.
Exterior:
Outside needs to grow on you, looks a bit bloated from the profile only because its an odd shape. But overall its an eye catching car and looks good from most angles. IMO the Altezza style rear lights look out of place and when a licence plate is attached to the front (Its the law here in MA) it makes the front look a bit funny.
Interior:
I this its a very nice interior, I always thought that Mazda had nice interior designs with good fit and finish. IMO it may be a bit overdone with all the rotary references in the one I looked into. But compared to my Z's interior its deffinatly of a higher quality but the style and design itself (just the looks of it) are i'd say equal to my Z.
Handeling:
I'm sure it handles very well since it has large tires and weights about 3000lbs. Low weight, good suspension and large tires = good handling.
Performance:
Here were it gets ugly to me. As a single guy with no family (don't car about a cushy ride and 4 seats/doors) I wanted a performace orentated car.
The RX8 suffers from a lack of torque (5-60 numbers tell the tale, nearly 8 seconds!). Now to make this issue worse Mazda steals HP from the USA models
I have NO DOUBT that the car would be pulling 14.5 times IF it had the full advertised 247HP (probably 205ish to the wheels). But its making about 215-220HP (180ish to the wheels) which would result in exactly low 15's. Deffinatly now slow, but the performance deffinatly does not measure up to what the aggressive looks would suggest.
Economy:
Not a big deal IMO, but I drive hard and do alot of city driving. I get 20-22MPG with hard driven city miles and 29-32 on the HWY. And when gas is $2 a gallon it adds up.
Looks and styling: 8 out of 10 (after you get over the strange proportions)
Performance: If it performed as origionally advertized a 8 out of 10. As it is now, 5 out of 10.
Everyday usefullness (if your looking for that kinda thing) 9/10 (if you don't count the low torque numbers (since adding more weight to the car.. passangers.. makes this worse and the sporty goes away and drives more like a sedan) and the bad MPG)
Sure i'll answer... Here's is my honest opinion.
Exterior:
Outside needs to grow on you, looks a bit bloated from the profile only because its an odd shape. But overall its an eye catching car and looks good from most angles. IMO the Altezza style rear lights look out of place and when a licence plate is attached to the front (Its the law here in MA) it makes the front look a bit funny.
Interior:
I this its a very nice interior, I always thought that Mazda had nice interior designs with good fit and finish. IMO it may be a bit overdone with all the rotary references in the one I looked into. But compared to my Z's interior its deffinatly of a higher quality but the style and design itself (just the looks of it) are i'd say equal to my Z.
Handeling:
I'm sure it handles very well since it has large tires and weights about 3000lbs. Low weight, good suspension and large tires = good handling.
Performance:
Here were it gets ugly to me. As a single guy with no family (don't car about a cushy ride and 4 seats/doors) I wanted a performace orentated car.
The RX8 suffers from a lack of torque (5-60 numbers tell the tale, nearly 8 seconds!). Now to make this issue worse Mazda steals HP from the USA models
I have NO DOUBT that the car would be pulling 14.5 times IF it had the full advertised 247HP (probably 205ish to the wheels). But its making about 215-220HP (180ish to the wheels) which would result in exactly low 15's. Deffinatly now slow, but the performance deffinatly does not measure up to what the aggressive looks would suggest.
Economy:
Not a big deal IMO, but I drive hard and do alot of city driving. I get 20-22MPG with hard driven city miles and 29-32 on the HWY. And when gas is $2 a gallon it adds up.
Looks and styling: 8 out of 10 (after you get over the strange proportions)
Performance: If it performed as origionally advertized a 8 out of 10. As it is now, 5 out of 10.
Everyday usefullness (if your looking for that kinda thing) 9/10 (if you don't count the low torque numbers (since adding more weight to the car.. passangers.. makes this worse and the sporty goes away and drives more like a sedan) and the bad MPG)
MOST people here understandably just flame on to satisfy their need to justify their RX8 purchase instead of discussing. Maybe they didnt do their research, maybe they baught into the 238-250hp ratings and jumped too early into the rx8. A lot of those people dont care that much about missing 25-30hp so they are still happy with the car, other are disapointed about the power but the overall package is still good enough for them, others return their rx8.
BUT most PROSPECTIVE Buyers are wary about the whole power and fuel consumtion issue. The resut is a LOT of people are just hanging around this forums to see if they can get some good quality information.
The same thing happened with the Acura RSX, it wouldnt break into the 14's easily Stock. Most people got 15.1-15.3 sec 1/4mile Stock. A LOT of people got flamed, lots of excuses, bad drivers etc etc. This rx8club seems like a rerun of clubRXS, its funny. Of course, the RSX is a cheaper car but still it generated a lot of controversy and people were complaing about 5-10hp if that. Then all changed when people started modding the RSX and HONDATA really saved the day with programming that allowed, with othe rmods, the rsx type s to get PAST the 200WHP mark! 215 wasnt uncommon! YES BETTER THAN Modded S2000!!
Maybe the aftermarket can save the RX8.
Its funny but most people accept the Miata as a good car even though it really lacks power and its a fact that has less power than advertised even after mazda rerated it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
czr
RX-8 Parts For Sale/Wanted
4
Sep 13, 2015 11:37 AM
AMOC
SE RX-8 Forum
1
Sep 9, 2015 05:14 AM
