MT vs. AT horsepower
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MT vs. AT horsepower
I'm new to the rotary engine, so this may have an obvious answer. I'm wondering about the 238 vs. 197 horsepower numbers. Could Mazda have just as easily made the AT with the same 238 HP as the manual, or is there some reason that the engines could not be configured the same?
#2
Registered
They are entirely different engines. The auto version has a 4 intake ports which are smaller. The manual version has 6 intake ports. The timing stays open later for more top end, it has more intake runner area, it has shorter intake runners, it has a much higher redline, etc. It is so much more complex than just raising the redline. The manual engine just has so much more breathing capacity. The auto engine is at a huge disadvantage.
#4
Is Scarce
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Near the top of the link below Gord96BRG has some comments related to your question. I recall related threads, including one that discussed using the low power engine with an MT.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...matic+AND+2005
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...matic+AND+2005
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chesapeake Virginia
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, they traded HP/RPM for greater torque in the AT. The converter limits the RPM in the AT.
Ah well...neither car is a world beater...but both are snazy rides.
P.S. One thing: I won't miss or dork up a shift in the AT. Not the fastest, but I will be there when the 'race' is over.
Ah well...neither car is a world beater...but both are snazy rides.
P.S. One thing: I won't miss or dork up a shift in the AT. Not the fastest, but I will be there when the 'race' is over.
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South Alabama
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are auto transmissions that could handle the higher RPM's, albeit not in production automobiles, and not nearly small enough to fit into the RX-8. Plenty of high perfomance builders have been turning tight for years, reliably!
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: So. California
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you really care about the HP? Remember, the AT has 5 more foot pounds of torque than the MT. This means the AT has more umph where it counts. The AT downfall is the number of gears (i.e. 4 vs 6). So, the AT has to work harder to do the same job; thus significantly defeating the torque advantage.
#8
Blue By You
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PoLaK
no the auto engine could not make 238@8500 because no auto tranny i know of could take 8500+ RPMs.
no the auto engine could not make 238@8500 because no auto tranny i know of could take 8500+ RPMs.
Plus, I believe it's more the torque converter than the tranny itself, though I could be off, that just seems to come to mind for some reason.
#9
Registered
Re: MT vs. AT horsepower
Originally posted by mjd
is there some reason that the engines could not be configured the same?
is there some reason that the engines could not be configured the same?
As I mentioned in that other thread, Mazda has a 5 speed auto trans in the works that can handle the revs of the high power engine, and it should make it into the 2006 RX-8.
Regards,
Gordon
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 01:53 PM