etang789

Well from what i understand is how much torque you can use and not how much u have....
like the honda engine in general, especially the older ones with vtech the torque is ver peaky and is very hard to use it...but in racing people just want a peak hp anyway....
i dun really know how to explain it but ... like when there is a flatter and longer torque graph is better ....

javahut

I agree with etang. Torque is relative. If 2 cars both have the same 0-60 time, but one has a higher peak torque during that time, the torque makes no difference. In fact, for cornering, my opinion is the one with the lower peak torque is preferable, because it is more controllable... it won't break loose and suprise you as easily. The average torque for both cars for the 0-60 time period would be identical.

The bottom line... the RX-8 has a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds... that's plenty of torque for me.

P00Man

the torque should be fine
________
DC MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY

etang789

personally i dun need much torque...i like to rev the car...hehe
i think this car is perfect for me....since the toque and power band really starts shooting up @ 4000rpm ~ 9500rpm....
if for cornering i will try to keep at around 4000rpm in the corner...and use the 4000--> 9500rpm to exit hehe....:p

zoom44

corect in a torque graph it's the area under the curve that is important!


and the other thing to consider is of course the gearing. to better understand this read this post from buger :

" Btw, the 159 ft-lb RX-8 is a relative torque monster compared to the 205 ft-lb Impala. Sure the Impala has a higher peak engine torque but looking at the wheel torque in first gear (or any gear really) tells a different story.

RX-8
engine torque ..... : 159 ft-lbs
1st gear .......... : 3.76:1
final drive ....... : 4.444:1
total gearing ..... : 3.76 * 4.444 = 16.71 (in first gear)
approx wheel torque : 2106 ft-lbs (in first gear)
approx weight ..... : 3000 lbs ?

2003 auto Impala
engine torque ..... : 205 ft-lbs
1st gear .......... : 2.92:1
final drive ....... : 2.86:1
total gearing ..... : 2.92 * 2.86 = 8.35 (in first gear)
approx wheel torque : 1182 ft-lbs (in first gear)
approx weight ..... : 3300 lbs ?

You can see that the RX-8 is geared about twice as much as the Impala in first gear (16.71 vs 8.35). The end result is that the RX-8 has almost 1000 ft-lbs more wheel torque than the Impala. If that wasn't enough, it is also quite a bit lighter.

Brian"

torque + gearing = drive wheel torque :D

pelucidor

I think Spoonie made a fair point and we (some of us) should in NO WAY give him a hard time for it. I personally agree that the RX-8 at low revs (2k-5k) will not feel the same as a G35C from 2k-5k. Having driven one many times I also agree the G35 is effortless at any engine speed. I am not sure how the RX-8 will feel and wait with bated breath to drive one myself.

Again personally speaking I thought the S2000s I've driven had plenty of torque at low rpm (like an Integra, which is plenty for ME) and was very impressive above 5750 rpm (VTEC), however I preferred to drive it at high rpm when I wanted a 'push in the back'. If the RX-8 is as good (should be better) at low rpm and is as good (should be better, smoother, quieter) above 6000 rpm then I will be a happy man indeed.

But Spoonie may want something different - and why shouldn't he (he may have differnt taste in food and movies too - so what). The good news is there is plenty of choice for all of us, lets celebrate the differences in cars instead asking all cars to be the same.

The other point Spoonie made is also valid - the RX-8 will not be perfect. If the 'lack of torque at low revs' is the worst problem we find in the car in the first year I will be ecstatic because it is a known 'issue' already, and most of us here have already taken it into account or disbelieved it.

zoom44

ahh yes. my posts should in no way be seen as being directed at spoonie. they were in response to the folks who said they didn't understand torque.

Digisan

I don't think either of them have great torque. I punched it in a 350Z (track version) to pass a car on a two lane road and it bogged down at 60MPH ( I don't remember what the RPM was), dropped it into fourth and it was pretty good. Then again, it was in sixth gear, so I didn't expect much. Another thing I didn't like is that once you get near 6K the power drops off. The 350Z, Z4 and 330 didn't impress me for the $$$, Z4 is really bad IMHO.

eccles

Where's the fun in that? If you don't want to have to shift, buy an automatic fergawdsake!

etang789

Get a CVT then....

Spoonie

Have you ever heard of engine flexibility? I never said that I didn't want to shift. Its good to have either option (Downshifting Optional).

Skyline Maniac

Well, my car has 270lb.ft torque, and most of it available at 2500rpm. Some say that there is no replacement for displacement, and to a certain degree, it's certainly true. That being said, the Renesis is necessarily an inferior engine because it lacks torque. Mazda was never really known for making heavy high torque cars like the Supra, 3000GT or Skyline. Mazda is good at nimble, light cars with small displacement engines and excellent cornering abilities.

Spoon made a good comparison between RX-8 and S2000, which I couldn't agree more. I think the RX-8 even looks like a S2000 saloon. (front end, back end and all) So if the S2000 can be a acclaimed performance, fun to drive car, then so can the RX-8. The RX-8 is hella light, much lighter than the G35C or BMW 330ci, and this is the main weapon of the RX, not its rotary engine. IMHO, the Renesis is seriously lacking torque across the rpm range. It is to be expected from a NA 1.3L engine, even if it's a rotary. Without that torque, the 250hp will not be all that useful in everyday driving. However, I think Mazda will introduce a turbo Renesis in the near future that will address this problem. Like the S2000, the RX-8 will be a fun car to drive, partially thanks to the high revving nature of its engine. People driving Germans, American muscles and large displacement engine will look at Renesis's low torque as its weakness, but realize that the RX-8 doesn't need 250lb.ft torque to have fun. It's a light car~ and that's what Mazda is counting on.

73JPS

Pelucidor, you have spoken well regarding individual preferences: I agree with you and Spoonie about that. But Spoonie my man, I sort of object to your initial post when you say "you guys need to come to the reality that the RX8 has flaws." That is a statement that simply invites defensivene responses.

Quite frankly, I don't have to come to ANY realities about the RX8 until I DRIVE the thing myself. Maybe the car will have enough torque for me, maybe not. But if the car does meet my satisfaction with respect to torque, I would be hard pressed to have an intelligent discussion with you about that topic if you are going to insist that I must "come to the reality" that the car has that flaw. At least, I won't be very open to changing my opinion with that as an opening statement.

It seems to be little understood in today's climate of casual manners that while it might be okay for a person to be openly self-critical, if you jump in and also start telling them what they should think of themselves, their tone is likely turn from open to defensive.

If y'all wanna "celebrate the differences", then ya ought not to be quite so insistent about telling me what realities I need to come to.

So endeth the lesson. :o :D

rael

Wonderful in-fighting about what!

End of the day the RX8 maybe slow from low revs (that is a given) but after the first couple of seconds once the revs are up (on a very easily reving engine) it will blow most cars out the way.

All one has to do is understand what the engine wants in revs, best usage of gears and the rest will be rear mirror observation.

rael.

ToRX-8orToZ

<<The bottom line... the RX-8 has a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds... that's plenty of torque for me.>>

5.9 seconds with an 8k launch (bye bye clutch). Plenty of torque for "spirited driving fun" yes; plenty of torque for performance runs... no.

Puppy1

BYE BYE TIRES!

DrKillJoY

again.. like it has been said before..and I will say it again to everyone drive one for yourself..

until you get in one and take a "zoom-zoom" lap... this argument is just a waste of time...

I know my experience was a good one.

nuff said.

zerobanger

I'll Keep my 1994 RX-7 for the speed, HP, Torque, Looks, braking, handling and cool factor.

I'll Keep my RX-8 for the Looks, braking, handling, cool factor..Oh yea and COMFORT.

Later.

javahut

This is just plain WRONG! When everyone here is talking about torque specs, they're talking about peak torque specs. Peak torque does not matter when your talking about over all time to speed specs or time to distance specs. Average torque does. If a 350Z ran 0-60 in 5.9 seconds, and so did an RX-8, their average torque for that time period is identical. It doesn't matter that the 350Z had a peak torque at some point during the run that was higher. It also means at some point during the run the 350Z had torque that was lower than the RX-8.

The rotary engine and the RX-8 apparently excels at having a more linear torque curve, which necessarily means it's peak torque will be lower.:D

AbusiveWombat

You're actually incorrect. We all know the formula F=ma. So accelleration = force divided by mass. In your example if both cars ran the same time 0-60 then the forces are identical. That is incorrect because both car weight different...therefore the forces are different.

Second...torque means nothing...it's horsepower
HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

Here my example: an S2000 with 153 ft-lbs of torque can run with a Mustang GT with 302 ft-lbs. I can't find Hp torque curves for both engines but we can pretty much assume that the Mustang has more torque throughout the RPMs than the S2000. So how does the S2000 keep up? Horsepower. The true way to see which cars are faster are horsepower / weight = acceleration. Mustang = 0.080 S2000 = 0.085

It's all comes down to who can average more horsepower during their acceleration. This is why you'll see many people also quote numbers of # of pounds per horspower. Ohhh one reason the Mustang stays with the S2000 in 1/4 miles are because it's large amount of torque helps it get to redline faster in 1st thus giving it a lead 0-20 making the S2000 play catch up.

S2000 = 11.7
Mustang = 12.5
350Z Track from Edmunds= 11.2
RX-8 (weight 2900?) = 11.6

neofreak

iTrader: (1)

Having owned three NA rotaries (FC's) I can tell you that you will have *no* problems with "getting around town" and the "lack" of torque does not bother me one bit. You have to understand the characteristics of the engine, it revs fast, and its happy to be in high RPM, plus even while you're normally driving, you'll still be keeping the car over 3k, unless you want to lug the engine/tranny.

Of course this may not apply to the 8, but fyi.

unemployedpimp

car and driver will get a slap in the face when the 4th generation RX7 comes out:D lets see wat theyll say now

MikeW

Power consists of torque and speed.

Quoting peak torque figures is as meaningless as saying something like my engine has 18000 rpms (Formula 1), 8900 rpms (Honda S2000), 6500 (Corvette Z06) Big *** two stroke diesel locomotive engine 1000 rps
Even the loser F1 teams have 825 hp @ 18000 revs, =241 ft-lbs there

So 159 ft-lbs @ 5500 = 166.5 hp
& 214 ft-lbs @ 3500 = 142.6 hp

(Torque * rev/second [rpms / 60] * 2 pi (radians)) / 550 ft-lbs second = horsepower
No your car doesn't accelerate "hardest" at maximum torque

You get power either by more quality or quantity
Quality= higher compression ratio
Quantity=More speed (rpms), more width (bigger engine)

javahut

I agree with you. I'm just saying, hypothetically, if both cars weighed the same and had an identical time to speed, the peak torque makes no difference. It's the average relative torque or horsepower to weight ratio over the time period or distance, not the peak torque (which is what some are questioning), that makes one car reach it's speed or distance a little quicker than another. We all know the RX-8 weighs a little less than the 350, so therefore requires a little less of either torque or horsepower to push it to the same speed or distance in a given amount of time as the 350.

Also, these statements are a little contradictory...

AbusiveWombat

[/QUOTE]

I was wondering if someone would catch that. If you look at the formula: HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

The having more torque means you reach higher horsepower in the lower RPMs. For the Mustang this means that it has an advantage of a greater power to weight ratio low in the RPMs. This is what hurts the S2000 at the start. It needs to get those revs really high to match the power to weight ratio the Mustang starts with. If the S2000 is driven perfect, hitting VTEC just right in 1st so you don't smoke the tires or bog the engine, then you'll kill the Mustang. But my experience with VTEC those starts are few and far between. Thus you play catch up.