RX-8 Performance Seems Weak???
07-08-2003, 09:30 AM
#1
I Just Can't STOP!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RX-8 Performance Seems Weak???
This not a comparison of the Honda S2000 and RX-8, but a look at the possibility that the RX-8 cars tested in car magazine was not quite up to spec.
Made a little chart comparing the RX-8 and Honda S2000 with some of the more important factors in a cars acceleration.
Did this because the acceleration performance published in most car magazines seems a bit slow for the power, torque, gearing and weight of the RX.
After doing this little chart it almost seems like the RX 247bhp version actually has the 210bhp version engine. I would have expected the RX-8 to be closer the S2000 (maybe a bit slower, but a very small bit).
Am I wrong to be suspicious or am I missing something.
P.S. - In my job the amount of work changes in waves, right now it's a very slow time. That's why I have the time to waster doing this stuff:p :D
This not a comparison of the Honda S2000 and RX-8, but a look at the possiblelity that the RX-8 cars tested in car magazine was not quite up to spec.
Made a little chart comparing the RX-8 and Honda S2000 with some of the more important factors in a cars acceleration.
Did this because the acceleration performance published in most car magazines seems a bit slow for the power, torque, gearing and weight of the RX.
After doing this little chart it almost seems like the RX 247bhp version actually has the 210bhp version engine. I would have expected the RX-8 to be closer the S2000 (maybe a bit slower, but a very small bit).
Am I wrong to be suspicious or am I missing something.
P.S. - In my job the amount of work changes in waves, right now it's a very slow time. That's why I have the time to waster doing this stuff:p :D
This not a comparison of the Honda S2000 and RX-8, but a look at the possiblelity that the RX-8 cars tested in car magazine was not quite up to spec.
Last edited by RomanoM; 07-08-2003 at 10:20 AM.
07-08-2003, 09:37 AM
#2
Pure Unadulterated Fun
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that it has been posted a few places that the top speed is govened/ limited to 155 in 5th gear. 6th gear is areo limited to 144.
Thank you very much for the comparo. It does seem strange that the 8 seems slower than it should given the numbers.
Thank you very much for the comparo. It does seem strange that the 8 seems slower than it should given the numbers.
07-08-2003, 09:51 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Port problems...old news
If you go to rotarynews.com and read their report on the production test drive, you will find that the early prototypes had the 3rd port sticking problem that was first report by Sport Compact Car way back when.
The Mazda rep came right out and said that it was true, that all of the cars tested by the magazines had this problem.
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
I think we will all be surprised.
The Mazda rep came right out and said that it was true, that all of the cars tested by the magazines had this problem.
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
I think we will all be surprised.
07-08-2003, 10:00 AM
#4
Pure Unadulterated Fun
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Port problems...old news
Originally posted by beaner
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
07-08-2003, 10:09 AM
#5
Re: Re: Port problems...old news
Originally posted by Puppy1
But wasn't the car used for the Best Motoring video a J-spec production model? The S2000 won that comparo and our beloved 8 was left lacking. That could be attributed to the J-spec S2000 having more HP that the U.S. model. But our 8 has the same HP as the J-8.
But wasn't the car used for the Best Motoring video a J-spec production model? The S2000 won that comparo and our beloved 8 was left lacking. That could be attributed to the J-spec S2000 having more HP that the U.S. model. But our 8 has the same HP as the J-8.
*shrug*
07-08-2003, 10:14 AM
#6
I Just Can't STOP!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Port problems...old news
Originally posted by beaner
If you go to rotarynews.com and read their report on the production test drive, you will find that the early prototypes had the 3rd port sticking problem that was first report by Sport Compact Car way back when.
The Mazda rep came right out and said that it was true, that all of the cars tested by the magazines had this problem.
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
I think we will all be surprised.
If you go to rotarynews.com and read their report on the production test drive, you will find that the early prototypes had the 3rd port sticking problem that was first report by Sport Compact Car way back when.
The Mazda rep came right out and said that it was true, that all of the cars tested by the magazines had this problem.
So thus, any current performance numbers that we have are bogus until the mags get their hands on a production model. Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port.
The Mazda rep also said that any reports of low end torque lacking will also be resolved by the production model.
So keep your chart, and redo the numbers when we finally get some perfomance stats on the production model.
I think we will all be surprised.
The problem you stated about the 3rd port would bolster my theory.
I get the feeling you thought I was trying to make the RX look bad, I was not, I have one on order. It's just I was suspicious about the numbers published so far.
07-08-2003, 10:31 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at this scientifically...
The only way we will resolve this issue is to have similar testing venues...(Same driver, same car mag, same day, same atmospheric pressure, etc, etc.) Everything else is just speculation...
Manufacturers almost always put out numbers that are inflated, just so they don't get jumped on when the magazines aren't able to replicate or beat the numbers. So if they listed 6.4, then chances are a mag will be able to beat that easily.
Did Best Motoring actually have any 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times? I don't recall that they did, plus it would have been difficult to extract from the Japanese with accuracy. Plus, like Hercules said, did they actually have a production model? As far as I can tell, the Rx-8 just did not go around the track as fast.
Anyway, time will tell...one of the US mags will have to do a comparison test...even though they may wait until the S2200 comes out. We will see how a little more torque with a lower ultimate RPM helps the S2200 times.
Manufacturers almost always put out numbers that are inflated, just so they don't get jumped on when the magazines aren't able to replicate or beat the numbers. So if they listed 6.4, then chances are a mag will be able to beat that easily.
Did Best Motoring actually have any 0-60 times or 1/4 mile times? I don't recall that they did, plus it would have been difficult to extract from the Japanese with accuracy. Plus, like Hercules said, did they actually have a production model? As far as I can tell, the Rx-8 just did not go around the track as fast.
Anyway, time will tell...one of the US mags will have to do a comparison test...even though they may wait until the S2200 comes out. We will see how a little more torque with a lower ultimate RPM helps the S2200 times.
07-08-2003, 10:32 AM
#9
I Just Can't STOP!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RobDickinson
The UK/Euro spec car only has 231ps.
Mazda rate this at 6.4 to 100kph(62mph). I doubt an extra 19ps will get the car below 5.9.
The UK/Euro spec car only has 231ps.
Mazda rate this at 6.4 to 100kph(62mph). I doubt an extra 19ps will get the car below 5.9.
I could be wrong, this is just a "gut-feeling" I have.
What beaner posted makes sense to me.
07-08-2003, 10:35 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romano...
Sorry, did not mean to come across that way...kinda hard to express emotion through the compute bits and bytes...
Just an aside, the 62 mph 6.4 seconds could also make a difference. Who know how many 10th of a second the 2 mph makes? It theoretically could change a shift point.
Anyway, it's all theory right now anyway...
Just an aside, the 62 mph 6.4 seconds could also make a difference. Who know how many 10th of a second the 2 mph makes? It theoretically could change a shift point.
Anyway, it's all theory right now anyway...
07-08-2003, 10:45 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be my first post in quite some time,
Like RomanoM, I have been suspicious about the performance #'s also, but never took the time to do a comparison to the peaky S2000.
Recently in Motor Trend the 0-60 was listed at 6.4, and the slalom for the RX-8 was slower than the listed slalom of the Mazdaspeed Protege. (I can't give the exact speeds off the top of my head.)
The 6.4s 0-60 I'm not very disappointed in, but the slower slalom speed than the Protege I am. Though if I recall correctly, the Mazdaspeed Protege comes with Z rated tires, and the RX-8 comes with W's.
Regardless, if I was in the market for a car, I wouldn't let any magazine figures dissuade me from purchasing the RX-8.
Just food for thought.
Like RomanoM, I have been suspicious about the performance #'s also, but never took the time to do a comparison to the peaky S2000.
Recently in Motor Trend the 0-60 was listed at 6.4, and the slalom for the RX-8 was slower than the listed slalom of the Mazdaspeed Protege. (I can't give the exact speeds off the top of my head.)
The 6.4s 0-60 I'm not very disappointed in, but the slower slalom speed than the Protege I am. Though if I recall correctly, the Mazdaspeed Protege comes with Z rated tires, and the RX-8 comes with W's.
Regardless, if I was in the market for a car, I wouldn't let any magazine figures dissuade me from purchasing the RX-8.
Just food for thought.
07-08-2003, 12:02 PM
#13
I Just Can't STOP!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, 0-60 in 5.9 and 14.5 1/4 mile is not slow.
That's about the performance of a BMW 330i PP with the 6 speed.
The RX-8 is just $12,000 cheaper
That's about the performance of a BMW 330i PP with the 6 speed.
The RX-8 is just $12,000 cheaper
07-08-2003, 12:04 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slalom speeds...
Once again, different day, possibly different driver.
The Mazdaspeed Protege beating the rx-8 does not bother me at all...it just proves how good of a car the MProtege is.
If I recall correctly, the original Protege MP3 beat the Ferrari 360 in a Road and Track article through the slalom. I believe it posted higher times than almost all production cars at that time.
It impressed Road and Track so much that they included it in their "Handling Comparison Test" which included many great cars. (It's low power was ultimately it's demise on a race track.)
The combination of quick steering, short wheelbase, and a light curb weight helps the MProtege.
Trust me, if the Rx-8 doesn't work out for some reason, and I can't afford a IG35c, then the Mazdaspeed Protege will be my 3rd choice. (Unless the MSpeed 6 is out by then, but I bet it will cost the same as the rx-8).
The Mazdaspeed Protege beating the rx-8 does not bother me at all...it just proves how good of a car the MProtege is.
If I recall correctly, the original Protege MP3 beat the Ferrari 360 in a Road and Track article through the slalom. I believe it posted higher times than almost all production cars at that time.
It impressed Road and Track so much that they included it in their "Handling Comparison Test" which included many great cars. (It's low power was ultimately it's demise on a race track.)
The combination of quick steering, short wheelbase, and a light curb weight helps the MProtege.
Trust me, if the Rx-8 doesn't work out for some reason, and I can't afford a IG35c, then the Mazdaspeed Protege will be my 3rd choice. (Unless the MSpeed 6 is out by then, but I bet it will cost the same as the rx-8).
Last edited by beaner; 07-08-2003 at 12:06 PM.
07-08-2003, 02:42 PM
#15
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually those acceleration numbers look right on to me..
Compare to the Prelude. 2950 lbs, 200hp, 0-60 7.1 1/4 - 15.1
I think if the engine was only making 210hp with extra weight then the numbers should have been very close to the prelude right? gearing notwithstanding..
Sorry to burst your bubble Herc.. :p and others.. Then again, 5.9/low 14's in the 1/4 is nothing to snicker at.
Compare to the Prelude. 2950 lbs, 200hp, 0-60 7.1 1/4 - 15.1
I think if the engine was only making 210hp with extra weight then the numbers should have been very close to the prelude right? gearing notwithstanding..
Sorry to burst your bubble Herc.. :p and others.. Then again, 5.9/low 14's in the 1/4 is nothing to snicker at.
07-08-2003, 03:15 PM
#17
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh only because I remember you saying in other threads that these numbers might get better because of the closed 3rd port issue.. And even here you're implying, or at least it looks to me that way, that depending on when a particular 8 was tested, it could still have been the "old" ones witha possible sticky port problem.
So once again, I think the numbers posted here are achieved with the fully capable 247hp engine. They might get better with different drivers and/or conditions but I don't think it will be 37hp worth of difference. S2000 has 7 less hp but also weighs 2800? lbs?
So once again, I think the numbers posted here are achieved with the fully capable 247hp engine. They might get better with different drivers and/or conditions but I don't think it will be 37hp worth of difference. S2000 has 7 less hp but also weighs 2800? lbs?
07-08-2003, 03:15 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What extra weight...looks like the prelude and the Rx-8 weigh about the same. Other thing is we are talking completely different platforms, front drive compared to rear, dinky 15 or 16 inch rims with 195 or 205rubber compared to 18 inch with 225 rubber.
Also, who says it was 210? Thats the rating on the Rotary with no 3rd valves at all! No one really know how much HP it was putting out.
I will be the first to admit if I am wrong, but I firmly believe what the Mazda rep said that the power and stats will be up from the prototype models.
And even if it isn't, I will still be buying one as soon as possible, and drooling over everyone elses until then.
Also, who says it was 210? Thats the rating on the Rotary with no 3rd valves at all! No one really know how much HP it was putting out.
I will be the first to admit if I am wrong, but I firmly believe what the Mazda rep said that the power and stats will be up from the prototype models.
And even if it isn't, I will still be buying one as soon as possible, and drooling over everyone elses until then.
07-08-2003, 03:15 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Mazda rep came right out and said that it was true, that all of the cars tested by the magazines had this problem.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but, the car tested by ROAD & TRACK DID not have any problem. The third port was working correctly when the turned a 5.9 sec. 0 to 60.
:o
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but, the car tested by ROAD & TRACK DID not have any problem. The third port was working correctly when the turned a 5.9 sec. 0 to 60.
:o
07-08-2003, 03:20 PM
#20
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Port problems...old news
Originally posted by beaner
Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port..
Essentially, with the ports stuck, it is the 210 horse engine, since that engine has no 3rd port..
Your point about the bigger wheels and RX-8 having rwd just reinforces my point that these acceleration numbers were achieved with a fully functioning engine. Otherwise if the engine was only making 210HP as per YOUR post then the acceleration would have been the same as the Prelude.
07-08-2003, 03:21 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would assume Boowana knows what he is talking about...
I would like further explanation though...did that particular prototype get dyno'd, how was it determined that it was fine?
Obviously I am not asking you to give away too much info, but if you have inside information, then end this discussion here and now by letting us know some 0-60 times on non-problem cars.
Can you give us any more Boowana?
I would like further explanation though...did that particular prototype get dyno'd, how was it determined that it was fine?
Obviously I am not asking you to give away too much info, but if you have inside information, then end this discussion here and now by letting us know some 0-60 times on non-problem cars.
Can you give us any more Boowana?
07-08-2003, 03:23 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick lude...sorry to get your worked up.
This is the internet...this is all speculation...
I was just trying to use deductive reasoning based on what "little" we know. Fact is, we really don't know ANYTHING until some tests of production models comes out.
Unless Boowana knows...:D
This is the internet...this is all speculation...
I was just trying to use deductive reasoning based on what "little" we know. Fact is, we really don't know ANYTHING until some tests of production models comes out.
Unless Boowana knows...:D
07-08-2003, 03:42 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaner,
I agree that the MS Protege is a great car. It proves regardless of price that it is a fantastic machine and can handle with the best of cars in any price range.
I suppose I just would like to see the RX-8 be a hands down better performer than the rest of the Mazda lineup - with or without Mazdaspeed.
I agree that the MS Protege is a great car. It proves regardless of price that it is a fantastic machine and can handle with the best of cars in any price range.
I suppose I just would like to see the RX-8 be a hands down better performer than the rest of the Mazda lineup - with or without Mazdaspeed.
07-08-2003, 03:44 PM
#24
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not worked up.. :D I think with a good driver and a 8,000rpm launch you might get better numbers.. but personally I don't care about straight acceleration, if I did I would be looking at a Mustang instead of the RX-8.
07-08-2003, 04:18 PM
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Devil...there is no question that the Rx-8 will be a better overall performer than the MProtege. It is a completely different ball of wax. It is a rear drive car for one thing.
That does not necessarily mean it will beat it at everything...the MProtege is a good slalomer. No big deal...
Trust me, if I thought the MProtege was a better overall performer, I would not be looking at spending $8000 more for the RX-8. I love my protege, but no matter how much you doll it up it will never come close to being an RX-8.
That does not necessarily mean it will beat it at everything...the MProtege is a good slalomer. No big deal...
Trust me, if I thought the MProtege was a better overall performer, I would not be looking at spending $8000 more for the RX-8. I love my protege, but no matter how much you doll it up it will never come close to being an RX-8.