Today i recieved the prelude booklet as they call it in the mail. It is like a 180 page color book all about the process of making it and stuff. In the middle it had specs and it said 0-60 stick-6.6, and 0-60 automatic 9.5!!! I know i got automatic because im gonna be shleppin back and forth to college on 95 alot but i didn't think the car was gonna be that slow. ANyways does anyone know if thats true because all the magz here say 6.0 and 5.9 for stick.. If it is what kind of stuff can i do to the automatic to atleast make it move alittle bit.. DAYUM!!!!

 

I'm surprised to see such a large difference, but I suspect that it's primarily due to the power delivery characteristics of the Renesis - with a manual, you can dump the clutch at 8krpm for a quick (if smokey) getaway, while a slushbox forces you to use pull away from lower revs. A high-stall converter would probably help the 1/4 mile times, but at the detriment of regular driveability.

 

A perfect description... :D

 

god damn everyones gotten their books except me.

anyways dont worry, alot of manfuctures underrate their performance numbers. like BMW, mercedes, etc. mags. got 5.9-6.2 with the manual(excluding motortrends 6.5 bullshit). with that said, auto should be around high 8's which is still pretty damn slow. but thats ur fault, shouldnt of gotten auto

 

Did anyone notice that the book also still states the 20 - 30 mpg for the rx-8 and estimates mixed driving at 23.

 

I haven't got the book either (but I am still at work - perhaps a surprise when I get home...).

And I feel really sorry for the automatic contingent if this is true. A 3 second deficit between auto and manual is horrendous - a 1 sec difference is more typical. In this case the engine is somewhat different and weaker for the auto but still I expected 7.5-8.0...

Let's hope that a real world test of the auto can allay your fears. East Moon - are you near a drag strip?

 

yea i noticed quite a bit of unfamiliar specs like the 0-60 times and the MPG...i'm guessing this book was developed early on and was finished before the production car was made with final specs...i'm gonna have to actually read that damn 200 page book to find out when it was actually written...

it does, however, make a GREAT coffee table book!

 

afd

 

I sure hope u guys are right i am thinking if the 250 HP is 5.8 or so i am hoping to see like a 7.5 or so for the Auto yes less HP but a bit more torque. I can live with like a 1.5-1.7 sec diff but if its in the high 8's or 9's then no matter how beatifull the car looks.
32,000 k is too much for a fully loaded civic performance type car even if i am in love with the interior.

PS this news really bummed me out i was lookin forward to gettin this car and i have to change cars in the next month or 2 cause i need to sell my VW and cant wait much longer.
Ack i dont want the Z but i might have to cope :-(

Sorry for the longish rant but i have to vent .
PLZ PLZ Mazda give us 250 hp with the Auto

 

JESUS!

If the auto really has a 9.5 run to 60 then my dealer can keep my car... I'll get a Z roadster instead...

 

Can't happen this year or next year - you'd have to wait for the new 5 spd auto or SMG that will both probably appear for the 2006 model year.

Why not get the manual? If you ever needed proof that auto transmissions suck...

Regards,
Gordon

 

9.5 seconds? OMG, is mazda crazy? Why would they make their sports car that slow. God, even protege beats that.

 

The 5.9 sec 0-60 of Road and Track et. al. was generated by a 8,000 RPM clutch drop with tire smoking ect.

Mazda probably doesn't want you driving the car that way so they are being conservative with the 6.6 second estimate. Remember the 5 - 60 Mph rolling start that RX-8 did was 7.5 seconds so 6.6 is not hard to believe.

Now as far as the auto is concerned If the 9.5 seconds is true, that is hard to believe. That is also unexceptable. My 1992 85HP Toyota Tercel could do 0-60 in 10 secs.

-Mr. Wigggles

 

Automatics and rotaries don't mix..

I think a CVT type of dealy would have been better.

 

roadt&track used a 7500 clutch drop not 8000. car and driver used the 8000

 

even the new Prius is 1/2 sec. slower at most. And a new Sports suspension too! 60 mpg plus for hwy??????

 

What do you mean they don't mix? Why does an auto tranny have such a difficult time transferring power from a rotary?

 

Torque. Or better said, the lack there of.

 

That better not be the case. If so, why should I get that if my current car is just as fast? This will just lead me more into the direction of the G35, but I guess I'll wait for the tests in the auto mags first.

 

If these performance stats do hold up i agree that is Pathetic
Mazda gave us a good looking car but if my current VW can outrun it with a less HP and less Torque engine, "I have the 180HP 173 Tq GTI AUTO which runs like a 8.5 to 60 and its 3200 lbs" what is the sense to spend $30+K i will either hold on to my VW which i dont want to do, or go for the G35 or 350Z though i dont like them much. Hey at this point the mazda 6S is startin to look good.
This car should run at least 7.0 to 60 with the Auto trans to be competative in this Segment. Wake Up Mazda.

 

Mazda just made the auto/manual decision easy for everybody. The auto is the "ladies" car -- no offense intended Elara. Somewhere in the RX-8 book it describes the difference between the auto and the manual by relating the auto to a Mercedes and the manual to an M series BMW in terms of how they were intended to appeal to the market. Mazda is obviously waiting for the more sophisticated manumatic/SMG transmission be ready for market before they bring out the high powered auto tranny. The current auto was just released to have something to fill that gap in the market for the short-term. I am amazed at how many people want the automatic but I guess there are even people who buy auto Porsches, etc. -- I just don't get it?

 

Do you frequent TERCELONLINE.COM?

 

the current stock of AT torque converters available to mazda in time for production were not able to handle the 9000 rpm. they just blew up.

 

Back in '96, my father leased a Corvette, and the dealer told him at that time around 80% of the vette buyers opted for auto. AUTO ON A VETTE! I guess some people just don't want to bother with a stick shift, who knows.

 

I think that the book stats are a misprint. It seems to me that there shouldn't be such an outlandish difference in accleration.

To test my theory, I dusted off my trusty copy of CarTest 4.5.

Using the data from the Mazda Website on the 4AT and the 6MT, plus the data on this site for the 5MT, I programmed the variables into the program and set her loose. I used Mazda's curb weight of 3053 pounds for the MT and 3085 pounds for the AT plus 200 pounds for the driver.

Here is the result: