Beodude

iTrader: (3)

You have it the other way around. With more air going over the car, and less going under, you will create more downforce.

http://www.up22.com/Aerodynamics.htm

There are a few pages that I looked at, but this one seems to explain pretty well.

Mr.ThunderMakeR

You are both right in a way. Either way, I'd be willing to bet any aero benefits from the R3 trim package are negligible. The only real way to know is put the cars in a wind tunnel and measure the forces. I doubt thats ever gonna happen, I wouldn't be surprised if Mazda has never even done that.

olddragger

iTrader: (3)

The R3 is more performance oriented.
The different front actually provides downforce, the side skirts actually compliment the underchassis paneling, the wing actually does make a little downforce.
a little can be a lot on a high speed track.
I would say the weight is about the same. within 100 lbs of each other
I do know after driving one for a while that it is a very responsive stock chassis/suspension. The lower profile tires and the bilsteins can easily be felt in transitions.
0-60's are slightly more than the S1 model due to 60 mph cannot be reached in 2nd gear anymore. But 0-100 is different!
The no sunroof--means more room for helmets also.
Plus the R3 just LOOKS faster.
OD

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

The factory Mazdaspeed kit and wing is the only wind tunnel tested kit. But it wouldn't surprise me if the R3 was wind tunnels tested.

Spin9k

Holy aerodynamics! Those sentences are all wrong lol! Think of it this way. 'Fast air' causes lift. So given that the ambient air around the car is not moving, when a car goes thu this stationary air, the air moving over the top has to go faster because it travels a longer distance (up and over the cabin) to get to the back...causing lift...that is... until it get's to the back and causes drag due to the vacumn created by turbulance as it falls off (and down ..again a longer distance) the back edges of the car.

If the air going under the car can be minimized, then there is lass air there and so creates a low pressure area or force down, sucking th car towards the pavement.

IOW fast air causes low pressure and lift. Slow air causes high pressure.

Mr.ThunderMakeR

Lets not turn this into a discussion of the fundamentals of aerodynamics. All three of you were wrong and right in certain ways. Lets keep it on topic though, my point is the R3 additions probably have very little effect on the lift or drag forces acting on the car. If you get under the car and take a close look at the front splitter, there isn't much to it and it isn't even attached too well. If it was providing any sort of real downforce, it would just get ripped off. The ony other difference in the front is the lower corners of the front bumper are flared out a little more, not going to get any benefit there either.

I stick to my claim the R3 package is mostly an appearance one. I know how we can prove this, lets hire a professional driver and rent some track time. I'll volunteer my R3, now we need a stock Sport and a stock GT. (Jk btw)

Polish Person

Then why does it cost as much as a GT, if it's basically a Sport with a body kit? Do the few extras and body kit justify a $5,000 increase? I think they do, but it's arguable at best. The R3 may be more track ready, but it really does just come down to a seat, a suspension and a bit of aero.

Mr.ThunderMakeR

The wheels are pretty expensive, a replacement from Mazda costs somewhere around $2000 I've heard.

larkin

iTrader: (1)

What Bilstein shocks are used on the R3, HD?

I test drove 5 Sports and 1 R3. I chose against the R3 due to price and the fact that the pcm can't be messed with but what I did really like was the steering feel. I'm thinking it was thanks to the Bilsteins and the Recaros. Had a chance to grab some R3 recaros for $1.2k but didn't bite. Next time.

Pico

iTrader: (2)

^ no they are not HD's. HD's have a different perch height which would change the ride height of the car.

Detrich

i have heard that the new gear ratios (S2) + the 19" tires make the 0-60 slightly slower. but, dunno if that's true or not. car & driver did some track tests with an R3 a few months back when it did the article about best sport cars under $100k. someone posted the article here, so do a search and read that one. it has some nice info on the R3...

jason> what happened to your blue r6?

RogueTadhg

The R3 Recaros are crap, long term. I think there's something wrong with making "Leather" racing seats. Besides leather's weight, it's prone to cracking and looks bad after a while of use.

I would love to pick up aftermarket Recaro, Bride, or Sparco.

jasonrxeight

nothing happened to it.
I just figured its a car forum so I took the pic off.

jasonrxeight

its not entirely leather. the center is very rough fabric gets very gripy when the sides are leather cuz not many people like rough fabric touching them when say wearing shorts.

Jacob6875

Car and driver did a comparison between the normal rx8 and the R3 around a test track. The Virginia International Raceway. The R3 was a little faster.

3:16.7 MAZDA RX-8 R3 2/11
3:19.0 MAZDA RX-8 11/06

Here is the article:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...to_2011_page_8

Rx8vsMalibu

Ahh, I was looking for that article. 2.3 seconds is actually a lot of time.

Razz1

Gee.. this is still going...

Isn't the R3 foam filled frame and the standard 2009 GT is not?

If your trying to compare it to the series I, all you have to do is change the suspension, and perhaps lighter wheels.

The series I out accelerates and out brakes the R3.

9291150

Different cars, different days, different conditions, likely different driver - I don't think comparisons within a couple of seconds on a track that long with all these factors is that reliable.

Actually, I heard reviewers complain about the R3's ride quality more than once, and that was always a strong point with regular 8's, so I can only attribute that to the R3's 19's. Any tested specs never showed the R3 to be any better, worse actually in the examples I've seen, but I do think the R3 looks way cooler, otherwise any "real" difference is minor.

jasonrxeight

I think R3 has a redesigned rear suspension design.
and how about out brakes R3? tell me about it.

larkin

iTrader: (1)

Does the R3 have a different steering rack ratio? Also wonder what the real deal is with the "modified rear suspension geometry". Surprised no one's gotten to the bottom of that on the forum yet.

jasonrxeight

the ratio is the same, the rear suspension design is revised.

from wikipedia
"For 2009, mazda engineers improved the RX-8 body rigidity through the addition of structural reinforcements, by adding a trapezoidal strut tower bar and enhancing the local rigidity of the front suspension tower areas. The 2009 RX-8 is also 90 lbs lighter than the previous (2003-2008) models. Also, the rear suspension geometry has been reconfigured for better handling by improving drivshaft rigidity, lowering NVH levels, and improving overall performance. The 09 RX-8 has a different gearing ratio (on manual transmission-equipped cars) that is lowered from 4.444 to 4.777 for improved off-the-line performance. While minimal, these performance changes give the 2009 RX-8 increased acceleration and performance, as well as even greater responsiveness to the accelerator pedal. Mazda claims that the 09 RX-8 is a significantly faster car than the previous (2003–2008) model car due to the lighter weight, lowered gearing, and improved suspension.
The 2009 RX-8 also receives design enhancements that are meant to freshen the styling and give the RX-8 a new look, without impairing the basic design theme. Refinements for the 2009 model year include a more aggressive restyled front and rear bumper as well as a new front fascia. The 09 RX-8 also comes with sporty, high-quality finish front and rear headlamps as well as larger exhaust pipes (now measuring 90 mm across). The 2009 RX-8 also offers a new five-spoke wheel design featuring a symbolic and sporty design reminiscent of the rotary engine, with different arrangements for each wheel size. There are currently three trims available to consumers: Sport, Grand Touring, and R3.


2010 Mazda RX-8 R3 (US)
The R3 version was introduced for the 2009 year model. The R3 package adds slightly improved suspension over the base model by adding Bilstein shock absorbers and a foam filled front crossmember to improve rigidity. The R3 also comes with 19-inch BBS-forged aluminum-alloy wheels and high performance tires. On the exterior, the R3 has a different, lower front bumper sporting a splitter, lower side sills, and a standard rear spoiler. There is a pair of special Recaro seats up front, along with the same 300-watt Bose audio system, Bluetooth, and Mazda advanced keyless entry and start system."

larkin

iTrader: (1)

I guess I'm wondering exactly how you might go about achieving the same results as the modified rear suspension geometry on non R3 models.

The result being sharpened steering response according to C&D, "tweaked rear-suspension geometry settles the back end and helps sharpen steering response."

Domdil

the claimed curb weight from a base series 1 rx-8 with cloth interior, no sun roof or traction control is 2900 LBS, the R3 is 3065. Seems like quite a bit lighter. If this is true that should translate into a slighlty quicker 0-60 time for the base series 1 vs the R3 and I think the GT would be heavier due to the stock leather seats which are quite heavy, and the sun roof and a few other goodies.

jasonrxeight

how come a R3 is 165lbs heavier than a S1 Sport? theres no difference almost.
wheres that 2900lbs come from? is it dry or wet weight?

Mr.ThunderMakeR

Unfortunately the new C&D Lightning Lap article doesnt really give us any solid info. The test conditions are too different to pull any meaning out of the 2.3 second difference. Different driver, different year, different track temps etc. Also their first time with the 8 was a S1 so that throws even more variables into the equation. For simplicity's sake, I was looking for a direct comparison between the R3 and a S2 Sport in the OP.

The only real way to know would be to put a pro driver in both cars back to back on race track. This probably wont ever happen.

How do you justify this claim?