RPM's the thing
 

I think many of you understand that the Renesis is a sporty, high RPM engine and has to be driven accordingly to ring out the performance. Having said that, I also have noticed numerous complaints that the Renesis lacks torque. I'm going to step out on a limb and say that's probably a qualified complaint. Yes, it lacks torque, but it's not that lacking when wound up a bit. In my [feeble] mind, the Renesis has the nature of a true, small, sports car engine; it must be "worked" [maybe "managed" is a better word] to get the optimal performance. A big-bore engine it's not. Here's an odd, if not interesting comparison:

My Nissan pickup has an OHC 2.4L, I-4, 3-valve per cylinder engine that cranks out 134 HP at 5500 RPM and 154 lb-ft. of torque at 3600 RPM. To drive it around town one would think it's pretty torquey for it's size. A pretty good "grunt" engine. Rev it, lug it, it's happy, it goes. It's looks are deceptive.

Now, my dimunitive 1.3L Renesis cranks out 238 HP [HP controversy aside] at 8500 RPM and 159 lb-ft of torque at 5500 RPM. But wait! What's this? The Renesis makes slightly MORE torque than my venerable old 2.4L, yet it doesn't FEEL that way! Why? Because the Renesis's torque occurs at a relatively high RPM. Essentially, that's the difference. Max torque at 5500 RPM is relatively lofty place. Yes, no? I think few drivers launch their 8 while slipping their precious clutch at that RPM, for good reason.

So, my conclusion is that reasonably good torque is available from the Renesis, but not under ordinary driving conditions. I think most of us don't go there simply because we choose not to fry our clutch. Or, we just don't cruise the streets at 5500 RPM. Like it or not, the Renesis is a small engine and needs to rev to really go. If you need gobs of low-end torque, put a kompressor on it or defect to a "big-bore" piston engine.

<flame away>

<shields up>

1.3L :)

I agree one hundred percent!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

I think the problem is, nobody expects a truck like you mentioned to 'feel' fast...People expect an exotic-looking car to BE fast. ;)

:D

that's great and all, but a little more torque would make the daily work commute alot easier.

I think it's not necessarily the "lack" of torque but the shape (relative flatness) of the torque curve...

yes yes and yes! that is how I've always felt!

but really I do drive around the streets over 7500rpm often :D

Actually, the RX-8 makes near peak torque from relatively low revs on up...`
 

It's just that it only makes a maximum of 159 foot pounds - but the car has a very flat torque curve. It's the horsepower that is pretty peaky. Take a look at the dyno curves and maybe you'll understand. Horsepower develops in an almost 1 to 1 relationship with rpm. That's a 45 degree angle curve. The torque curve is very flat in comparison.

Well... neither your truck nor your RX-8 make much torque. But I agree you notice the torque in a car more when it hits low in the RPM range, drive a turbo diesel and you'll certainly know what I mean. If you need to wind a car up to get to the peak torque, that torque is pretty pointless in my eyes. You also don't need to go to a "big-bore" piston engine to get gobs of low end torque. Well maybe gobs you do but drive some of the VQ engine Nissans or certain turboed 4 cylinders and you'll see why people complain of lack of torque in the RX-8 and S2K. For me it's not a big deal and I enjoy both cars, but the RX-8 could use a little more kick in the pants which I think is more a hp thing than torque.

There are some members on the site that are going to give me shit about this, but their only in denial....................................

I think people Bitch because they have no idea and are use to Big Engines, Turbo's and Superchargers. Get a Manufacture that knows how to make an engine and you'll get what your looking for. ( Not saying that Many Manufacture's know don't know how to make good engine, Because they do!) But What do you expect from a 1.3L Engine? How many Manufactures wish they could make an 1.3L Engine that can perform like the RX8 without Massive Torque, Super Chargers and Turbo's. You drop that out of the equation and you have a bunch of Manufactures that are Lost! You have people that say, we'll their engines will designed to have Turbo's and Superchargers. Well, I tell them Listen for ONCE. "What IF" for once............... "What IF"the Manufactures like Subaru(Turbo's), Mitsubishi(Turbo's) and Nissan (Big Liter Engines) didn't have all that extra luggage. "WHAT IF" Mazda Decided to Drop a Supercharger or Turbo in the RX8. These So Called Sports Cars would be getting their asses handed to them and even worse than they are now! Anyone that denies that is full of shit! The RX8 gives them a run for their Money on a 1.3L Rotary Engine with No Turbo, No Supercharger and most of all No Torque! But people still have the nerve to bitch about it. The RX8 is what it is and that is NOT slow! It may not be as fast as an STI or EVO but like a said drop Torque, Supercharger or an Turbo in the RX8 from the Manufacture and the competition is DONE! Too Many people are hooked on what they have without looking at the real picture. So I say to those Hatter's, love your Nissan's, Subaru's and Etc but when it comes down to it, look at the whole package and you'll see who's the real champ!

^^ techinally speaking a 1.3 rotary is equivalent to a 2.6 piston if im not mistaken... so ya.. just pointin that out..

And the equivalent to a 7.0l piston engine in fuel economy :p

First, paragraphs are your friend. Second, saying a car that doesn't exist is better than cars that do exist is moronic.

Everybody in every Forum in the world knows the cars I stated don't exist. (Even if I'm making a legitimate statement that makes sense) If you read what I was saying, the RX8 "is what it is".


Supercharges and Turbo's are add-ons in my eyes. Design Teams that can build Torque and(or) High RPM's right into the Engine without the need of a Turbo and Supercharger is a bigger accomplishment in my eyes. The whole point of this thread was to talk about why people complain about the lack of torque. My answer to that is, people are not use to the Rotary Engine and its Broad Power Band.

You'll never get the point and are too suborn to open your mind to anything. Stay to sleeping on the couch................ that's where you'll be for the rest of your life.

Cas2 you are right on again ;)! The Rotary is like a building orgasm...exploading with power at peak excitement and activity.

Ha............ thats a way to put it! :D

The FD maybe..

It's a quick car above 6k rpm's. If you want to go fast go there, if you don't want to go there get a different car.

Heck my sentra and eclipse have more torque than my rx8 but the rx8 is a second faster to 60. Although being able to squeek the tires through the first 5 gears in the sentra with the torque and front wheel drive is kinda fun too. :)

In MY opinion, FWD = at best a sporty car but not a TRUE sports car. I know FWD's have done some great things but when you are designing a sports car...you normally have only two options, RWD or AWD if you want the car to handle at it's best.

Note: I've owned two very good handling FWD cars (NX2000 & Probe GT) and I know the old Integra was able to handle very well, but again...IN MY opinion you have to go RWD or AWD when you are talking sports cars. Case in point...how many FWD super cars do you find?

I for one do not cry about torque...since the first test drive, it's not a big issue. Yes I would like more of it but what the 8 can do with what it does have is amazing. I can respect something from any sports car but when you have a Turbo or SC and compare it to a NA engine it's a little foolish.

Evo's & STI's are fast as heck and handle very well, but that's what happens when you TURBO the hell out of a small car.

Camaro's & Mustangs (the American way) use big engines to produce big power with gobs of smile producing torque.

The RX8 is a complete sports car, yes it could have more power, but is in NO WAY a slow car.

I think Ike respects the 8 but wishes it produced more power. It's competitors (350Z, GTO, Mustang GT) are all faster than the 8 but none of them match it in so many other area's.

Ike's sometimes disdane for our 8 is (wink wink...lol :p ) deep rooted in his hidden love affair with it yet he can't take his hands off his WRX when the 8 is just not fast enough in his eyes.

We all got the 8 based on something more than straight line speed. The 8 handles (overall) better then all 3 of those cars. The 8 looks significantly better than those 3 (add the S2K, WRX, and EVO in that list too) and it's fun factor can't be touched.

Note: Blah blah blah...yes yes, I know...looks are subjective...

So, don't get mad at Ike. I wish the 8 had another 65 (enter Greddy turbo here) HP too, but in it's present state and with every other mile that I drive the car the facts remain.

THE MAZDA RX8 IS ONE HELL OF A SPORTS CAR!!!

Any true sports car person can not ignore that FACT!

Well said RX8wannahave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very Well said!

I'd drive it at 6k RPM's all the time (as I don't care about MPG) but I worry that even though it's a rotary engine, driving anything at that speed will shorten the longevity of the engine, am I right?

EDIT: and yes I agree with Rx8wannahave (did I really just say that? :p )

Yes, but I think many are still missing my point; the Renesis is a SMALL engine. In fact, it is probably one of the smallest, if not THE smallest engines among sporty cars or high performance cars. Since the designers chose to stick with the small displacement, there are basically only two other avenues to get good performance out it: spin the snot out of it, and/or use forced induction. High revs alone tend to make it (obviously) a more peaky engine. Forced induction, as you mentioned, does wonders for any engine and I'm sure the Renesis would respond wonderfully to such a modification.

What I fail to understand is why some owners expect such a small, normally asperated engine to behave like a 3.5L V-6 or some other sporty, turboed engine. It's apples and oranges...

1.3L

It gets the gas mileage of a true sportscar.. ;)

Cas, you need to lay off that lame ass comparison you always make about taking the turbo out of cars. The cars were designed WITH turbos. Why do people think that it's cheating to have a factory turbo car? The argument that you can't compare one car to another because one of them has a factory turbo is stupid and it needs to stop.

As for wannahaves comments. The idea of a true sports car is different from person to person. You often preach the very same stuff as in that post, calling it a true sports car, its so well rounded etc, and saying nobody can argue that. Basically presenting your opinion as fact. The 8 doesn't fit my definition of a true sports car, IMO, it is closer to a GT with great handling.

Do you two need some alone time?

If you're talking to me, you know I only dig fat chicks :p

For the last time the RX8 is/was not intended to replace the 7. It is a practical sport car for the street with handling that can compete in autox. Mazda's intentions for the 7 was to make an all out race car for the street. If mazda wanted they could of slapped in a 3 rotor TT into the 8 and called it a day. Instead they compromised power for reliability and comfort. Mazda wants to SELL cars and the trends are different these days. Sure the horsepower wars are still there but in order to sell the rotary as a comparible alternative to the piston engine; Mazda first has to make some kind of return on investment. To accomplish this, Mazda had to build a rotary car that appeals to a broad demographic and prove the reliability of the renesis. If Mazda is successful then we might see a few more rotary powered vehicles. Until then let us be thankful that the rx8 exists and that ford backed this vehicle for North American production. Who cares if it can't beat the sti/evo/srt/350z ect. The funny thing is that before mazda got the rotary to work efficiently, a number of other automotive companies tried and failed.

so at what point are all of you going to stop bitching about torque? Did you test drive these cars before you bought your RX-8? I drove alot of the other cars in this category and made the choice to buy the RX-8. If you want torque then get a mustang that handles like a sled in the snow or get a subaru WRX and hope that the turbos and the AWD system dont have problems. This car a car for people who know how to drive on canyon raods where it excells......and by the way look at stats on Ferraris and other high reving exotics or F-1 cars with "no torque" and tell me that they are slow>>>>
All I am trying to say is that if the lack of torque is such a big deal then don't buy the car or sell it and get something else!

Show me a ferrari with 155 ft-lb of torque ;)

Prolly less than 155 :)


1948 Ferrari 166 Inter Scaglietti Spyder
engine V12
valvetrain SOHC
displacement 1995 cc / 121.7 cu in
bore 60 mm / 2.36 in
stroke 58.8 mm / 2.31 in
power 104.4 kw / 140.0 bhp @ 6600 rpm


;)

you knew what I meant

I was simply being a smart-ass....it's pretty bad sometimes; when people post anything, however trival, that paints the rx8 in less than 'glorious' lighting. I feel for ya..

:(

Oh I know you were being a smartass. I'm just glad I didn't make any spelling errors.

There are many cars that out perform the RX-8 (Mustang GT, 350z, S2000, WRX sti, C6 Corvette). There are many cars that out class the RX-8 (LS430, TL, G35). There are many cars that out perform and out class the RX-8 (M3/M5, SL 600/SL 65 AMG, XLR/XLR-V).

So why buy the RX-8? How about the added class that the performance category lacks? How about the RWD and truer to sport/performance feel that the more upscale category lacks? How about the mainstream affordability that the high performance luxury category lacks?

It's been said time and time again, the one word that ultimately defines the RX-8 (besides "wow" of course) is "balance." It's not the fastest, it's not the most luxurious, it's not the best combination of the two even. It is what it is, and that's a mid-/high- performance automobile with a pleasing ride quality that compromises very little rigidity and performance degradation. All with an unbeatable price for the packaging.

You have a right to your own opinion, but remember, it's just that, an opinion. Every single person in history that has purchased their own car decided at one time or another that it was the balance they were looking for. Most people still have to live with the car payments they acquire, and that's a big part of that balance. If you bought any car that you test drove and are complaining that it doesn't have the performance or comfort that you wanted, then it's your own damn fault. And if you bought any car that you didn't first test drive, then you dug your own grave.

What is your definition of a true sports car, Blue Eyes? I'm not attempting to flame, I'm just curious.

To me, there are very few true sports cars still being made. I go back to the days of the MG, Triumph Spitfire, etc., and none of those 60's/70's "sports" cars had much in the way of torque. Hell, none had much in the way of horsepower for that matter. In order to get the car to perform, you had to drive it, rather than simply sit behind the steering wheel and push the gas pedal, like so many so-called sports cars today. The '8 has far more power than any of those sports cars did, and probably has more torque (but I'm not sure on that). Point is, the '8 has to be driven to divine its max performance, and I think that's one of the (many) reasons that I like it so very, very much.

Bill

I think of it this way:

Size and weight of a 1.3
Output of a 2.6
Fuel economy of a 3.9

Obviously that's a generalization with limited accuracy; some vehicles are different depending on gearing, vehicle weight, tuning, etc. More realistically, the RENESIS weighs a tad more than a 1.3, puts out less torque but more power than the typical 2.6, and gets the same city MPG as a 3.9 but worse highway fuel economy (again, depending on the 3.9... yes yes, we all know the 5.7 Vette can get mid-high 20s highway, but that's not typical for an engine of that size).

no you're wrong, it's better for the rotary to be revved high, just make sure you keep the oil at the right level.

Bah, I had the extra half a quart of oil drained. :p

Getting back to original posting, there's a whole point of view that has not been discussed, and its arguably the most important:

Torque, in itself is irrelevant. It's the wheel torque that's important. Ie, you have to consider the gearing for the torque to make sense. Now, through aggressive gearing, mazda has been able to generate terrific wheel torque for the Rx8

2001 Camaro: 19/28
2005 GTO: 17/25
2005 CTS-V: 16/25
2005 Mustang GT: 17/25
2003 Cobra: 16/22

The advantage of a 5.7l engine is that you can have crazy overdrive gears but still have enough torque to pass semi trucks on the highway without downshifting..

john

you are right about apples and oranges.. roataries and pistons... BUT if compared the 1.3 is the same as a 2.6L 6 cyl.... so that is y peeps complain about torque...
and its gas consumption is close to almost the 8.3 litre SRT-10 (exaggerated) so i expect torque numbers to range in the 500lb ft should do it... :rolleyes: :p

a 1.9 litre v12 ??? thats tiny yet big!! :D

I knew a muscle car enthusiast who bragged about how never needing to push the peddle down all the way to accelerate, no matter what gear he was in. Why have all that power and the extra gears if you don't use them? I personally never viewed downshifting as disadvantageous. Also, the 5.7 does not produce enough wheel torque in 6th to pass in most situations (though you don't need to drop to 3rd like you do in the RX8).

Anyway, one of my points was that fuel economy isn't always proportional to engine size.... depends on many other engine and vehicle traits. There are many I-4s that get around 20/25. And it's not uncommon for the 5.7s to get lower than what they're rated for (depending on driving style and conditions, obviously).

It's not like I drive a Z06. I just think that GEARING is possibly the most obvious thing that factors into mileage. My 1.6L Miata gets pretty Corvette-like mileage on the highway, possibly because at 75 mph I'm spinning about 4000 RPM..

Yes, but
I was simply disproving that point..

Wait, what? You're telling me it's possible for a car to get UNDER EPA estimates? Are you sure? :p

You can compare them...sure, but just make sure when they start adding Turbo's & SC's to the 8 that the owners of those Turbo's & SC cars don't start saying...sure, it's because it has a Turbo. It goes both ways...

True, but for the common person looking at a RX8...9 out 10 would say it's a sports car. It seems a little snobish to call a Mustang, a GTO, and the Ferrari 460 GT (yes I know what GT means) not a sports car because they have 2+2 seating.

Let's see...it breaks, handles, is balanced, is significantly faster than most cars, it has a high performance engine, has a race car type suspension....??? hmmmm....if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and does duck things....aint it a duck?

I would love to hear what YOU think is a sports car...I would love to hear it really. What does the RX8 lack that DOES NOT make it a sports car. Please explain...

Note: Sorry that when I say FACT it bothers you, but again I would love to hear the argument WHY the RX8 is not a sports car

So sports cars only have 2 seats...if that's your definition then no, it's not but my definition is not as limited as how many passengers it can take. Again...help me understand and define a sports car for me.

Note: Blue...do you have an RX8? I'm just asking cause I really don't know...

I don't think this is what you were going for.

Breaks "like a sports car" is what I mean...further explained it stops the car "like a sports car".

Breaks...
 

...he means you mean "brakes" not "falls to pieces" - subtle difference!

S :D

I consider the 8 a lot more of a sports car than an sti or an evo or a mustang or a gto.

To me the sti and evo are rally cars not sports cars. Rally cars have decent performance but are butt ugly, a sports car has to have a certain look to it, and that look isn't a grocery getter with a big wing and a hood scoup. The evo and sti look like grocery getters that someone slapped a wing, hood, and bigger wheels on. They might be a sports cars if someone would fix their looks, simply put they have no class.

Mustang and GTO are wanna be 60 muscle cars, the "let's slap a big engine in a mid sized car and not worry about anything else like handling or braking or style".

To me a sports car follows the tradition of the early british and italian sports cars, MG's, early ferrari's, triumphs, porche. They require some finese when driving, they require learning how to get the best out of the particular car, they require more maintenace. Stomping on the gas and just expecting the car to do all the work isn't what a sports car is about, turbo's and superchargers are not what a sports car is about, horsepower and torque are not what a sports car is about, 0-60 isn't what it's about. Handling, finese, fun, style, and looks are what it's about.

Things like most of the current ferrari's, lambo's, viper, etc. are classified as super cars not sports cars. Super cars are essentially taking the sports car to a rediculous level, more horsepower than necessary, more cost than necessary, more engineering than necessary. Only a trained race car driver is going to get the best out of them, only the rich can afford them. Only a fool who isn't a race car driver or rich would buy one.

GT cars? Good engine, soft suspension, focus on comfort at the expense of handling. The car you want to go to vacation in, not the car you want to take to the twisties. Examples are 5+ series of bmw's, some of the new cadillacs, g35, tsx, most of the audis, lexus, etc.

Modern sports cars? Miata, RX8, lotus elise, corvette(borderline), s2000, 350z, boxter, beemer z cars, mr2 spyder, etc.

Didn't what you write support that point? (maybe the way I wrote it was confusing) The Vette is rated for 28 and even in somewhat harsh highway conditions (some stop n go, lots of hills) can get mid 20s. So I call this mid-high 20s.

The other cars you mentioned are rated at 25 and do a bit worse in demanding conditions, so I wouldn't classify them as getting mid-high 20s, but mid 20s (or low-mid 20s, depending on the car and conditions).