|
Rx8 stats.
I just wondering what everyone has as far as personal car stats (How your car proforms)
My friends 2004 Manual puts out 170Rwhp and 15.1 1/4mile Gtech skidpad of .93. What has everyone else done? |
Well the Rwhp number is incorrect, the '8' doesn't like Dynos, something with the dsc/tc, it senses the front wheels not moving and runs the car in a 'detuned' mode. To prove this just look at the stats of other cars with similar (at the flywheel) hp ratings, like the S2000. The S2000 has 240 engine hp, 200 Rwhp and weighs 2700 lbs. and scoots to 60 mph in mid 5 seconds. The RX-8 has 238 hp at the flywheel, weighs almost 3000 lbs and scoots to 60 mph in just under 6 seconds. Put 250 or so lbs in the S2000 and I bet the 0-60 time would be comparable to the RX-8.
As for skidpad numbers I have seen .88g-.91g in magazines. There is so much more to a car than stats, but we all fall prey to the 'numbers game'. |
So... if I was to dyno my car, would mine be a more precise number because I don't have TCS/DSC installed? What do you think?
Does anyone know of a place here in the Bay Area (particularly San Jose) where I could reliably dyno my RX-8? Let me know. This should be interesting :) |
Originally posted by Xyntax So... if I was to dyno my car, would mine be a more precise number because I don't have TCS/DSC installed? What do you think? Does anyone know of a place here in the Bay Area (particularly San Jose) where I could reliably dyno my RX-8? Let me know. This should be interesting :) |
What's "limp mode"? So you mean to say, if the ABS is disabled temporarily, I might be able to extract a more precise number?
|
Limp mode is a non technical term used around the forum to describe the ECU intervention to certain events.
Limp mode may occur when the engine misfires under hard acceleration. This is a protective measure, over richens fuel to aid in anti detonation as well as retard ignition. Limp mode also has been seen on a dyno. The ECU sees the rear wheels spinning without the fronts spinning, and even though you defeated the DCS (with a long push on the button) the ECU still "detunes" to compensate. The RX8 is not dyno friendly. My comment was regarding the fact that your PCM (ECU) may still detune like the rest with the DSC on a dyno. Your car still "sees" wheel spin. It just lacks the equipment to mechanically compensate. This is not to say you PCM wont still try to go into "limp mode", though...because it is designed to protect the engine in an event like the first scenario I gave. Your car still has that feature. It still would be interesting to see if the Dyno numbers are different. I suspect not. |
Look guys, if the car was really going into limp mode it would be a more dramatic result than just bringing it down to 170-185 whp. This whole thing is now brought up because of a statement that mazda released and I don't think it's much more than Mazda trying to cover their ass. The numbers it's putting down at the strip including trap speed and times, the way it drives, all the dyno results, indicate it probably not 238 bhp and closer to 220.
If you want to believe the mythical limp mode that the RX-8 goes into on a dyno then that's your perogative. But magazines have tested it and can't find any evidence that anything changes when the car goes on a dyno. And there probably is a limp mode on the RX-8 but you would need more wheelspin than you would ever create on a dyno and there really don't seem to be any sensors or ties with that front wheels like has been claimed. I'm not saying this makes it a bad car, it's obviously not, and most owners don't care about the numbers because they love their car so much which is what really matters. But if you're going to talk about numbers at least face reality and stop talking about this it doesn't dyno well nonsense. I've driven the RX-8 a couple times, I've also driven many other cars with 200-215 at the wheels, and the RX-8 is not making those numbers. That's what it should be making if it were really 238 at the crank. <awaits the flames> Ike |
I see. Thanks for the info. Are there other cars out there that have the same case as the RX-8?
|
I believ Ive heard of similar issues with the M3
|
Actually Ike, there's no way to get much more wheelspin than you could on a dyno where the front wheels aren't connected to the back ones? Let's see rear wheels going at fast as possible with the front wheels stationary = wheelspin as far as the comp. is concerned.
|
Unfortunately IkeWRX seems to be right. The car either has a GREAT loss from the flywheel to the wheels, or Mazda simply lies about the hp at the flywheel.
Look in the tech garage. CanZoomer did some trick to connect the sensor that measures the front wheels to the rear wheels instead, so that all 4 wheels return the same speed while on a dyno. Thus he circumvented the spinning-recognition or however it's called. The car isn't any faster then. I simply accept the fact that I bought a ~ 220 hp car and that's it. It's fast enough for me to get in trouble with law. -Peter |
Ike Ike Ike. oh how I don't like Ike.
|
Originally posted by rabinabo Actually Ike, there's no way to get much more wheelspin than you could on a dyno where the front wheels aren't connected to the back ones? Let's see rear wheels going at fast as possible with the front wheels stationary = wheelspin as far as the comp. is concerned. |
If the Limp or detune mode issue is a myth, then please show stats for another 3000 lb car with 220 hp doing 0-60 in under 6 seconds, and please remember there is not much torque and 18 inch tires.
The closest car HP and torque wise is the S2000, which is 250 lbs lighter and does not have 18 inch tires. Put the 18s on an S2000 and add 250 lbs of ballast, I'll bet the 0-60 times would be around 5.9 seconds. We know Honda probably underates the S2000 engine hp. The S2000 is putting aout 200 hp to the rear wheels. So IF the RX-8 is only puttung out 220 (as IkeWRK and others speculate) it is one fast ride for the HP/Weight ratio. Rough figures: S2000 240 hp/2750 lbs = 11.9 lbs per hp RX-8 238 hp/3000 lbs = 12.6 lbs per hp RX-8 220 hp/3000 lbs = 13.6 lbs per hp Celica GT-S 180 hp/2500 lbs = 13.8 lbs per hp No test of a STOCK Celica ever came CLOSE to 5.9 seconds 0-60, in fact most were 6.8 - 7.1 seconds. How can the RX-8 NOT have more than 220 hp? |
Not sure what the weight per hp ratio really says, I think it's pretty irrelevant.
Take a motorcycle and you'll be having a lot less lbs per hp, so what? I'm quoting CanZoomer here: "I dispute this. We measured the sensor load and outputs on the wheel sensors. When the DSC is disabled, the ECU is not receiving any signal from the wheel sensors. The final proof that this is not a valid issue is the fact that cars in Japan, which have the same ECU and sensors, but with a different fuel air map installed, regularly produce dyno rear wheel HP of 210 to 215HP. This is consistent with an engine making over 240 to 250HP. In Canada and the USA similar dyno runs show an output between 170 and 185HP, which is consistent with an engine making 200 to 215HP." https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...r&pagenumber=3 Everyone should read this thread and particularly what CanZoomer says. For the newbies, he's the one who sells a chip that give you back your missing 25 whp (yes, WHEEL hp) He doesn't defend his RX-8 as if someone had said "Your girlfriend is ugly". |
Originally posted by 6speed8 If the Limp or detune mode issue is a myth, then please show stats for another 3000 lb car with 220 hp doing 0-60 in under 6 seconds, and please remember there is not much torque and 18 inch tires. The closest car HP and torque wise is the S2000, which is 250 lbs lighter and does not have 18 inch tires. Put the 18s on an S2000 and add 250 lbs of ballast, I'll bet the 0-60 times would be around 5.9 seconds. We know Honda probably underates the S2000 engine hp. The S2000 is putting aout 200 hp to the rear wheels. So IF the RX-8 is only puttung out 220 (as IkeWRK and others speculate) it is one fast ride for the HP/Weight ratio. Rough figures: S2000 240 hp/2750 lbs = 11.9 lbs per hp RX-8 238 hp/3000 lbs = 12.6 lbs per hp RX-8 220 hp/3000 lbs = 13.6 lbs per hp Celica GT-S 180 hp/2500 lbs = 13.8 lbs per hp No test of a STOCK Celica ever came CLOSE to 5.9 seconds 0-60, in fact most were 6.8 - 7.1 seconds. How can the RX-8 NOT have more than 220 hp? 2.) Trap speeds don't lie (most of the time :p), and 0-60 times aren't as good an indication of a cars HP. 3.) Do you really think Limp mode, safe mode whatever you want to call it is safe if it drops the car a whooping 20hp... it's designed to save the engine/drivetrain and possibly even people. If you think 180hp is safe and 200hp isn't safe then you're wacked. 4.) A stock WRX weighs around 3k, it has the advantage of an AWD launch but in most cases doesn't get more than 170hp to the wheels, it goes 0-60 in the mid 5s with a proper launch. 5.) The Nissan Altima has run 5.9 0-60 weighs 3200 lbs and is FWD with a claimed 245chp, and that's with the disadvantage of FWD. There are other cars I could use as an example 6.) Look up occam's razor. |
but hymee has seen his freinds car go into limp mode on the dyno, with flashing cel and everything, while testing his cat back. however hymees car does not do it.
|
Originally posted by zoom44 but hymee has seen his freinds car go into limp mode on the dyno, with flashing cel and everything, while testing his cat back. however hymees car does not do it. Lets examine the series of events... People get their cars dynoed shortly after release Dynos range from 165-185 whp Arguments ensue and people pick a side, the 247hp is true people, and the blasphemers The blasphemers are somewhat redeemed and Mazda issues a revised hp number of 238 which is as low as they can go without worrying about legal action being taken. Mazda claims the problem was because of a new ECU fuel map. Some people still don't believe the 238 hp. MNA quietly issues a statement about dynoing the cars, and leak some odd looking time slips, some of which were done with the pre production car. SCC, and Canzoomer try to find this mysterious front wheel sensor that is linked to the ECU, no evidence is found. MNA execs sit in their offices biting their fingernails trying to figure out what excuse to come up with next. Now which scenario seems more likely to you? a.) Mazda fibbed again. b.) There really is a front wheels sensor and the car is making 238hp even though no one has been able to find it and all the evidence points to the cars making closer to the 220hp range c.) Mazda has managed to create the most power sapping RWD powertrain in recent automotive memory |
actually ike it was canzoomer who saw the dyno problem in the first place. he knows and still talks about the problem. that is why he does much of the tuning based on street runs. quick runs on the dyno don't cause it but runs over(i think he said) 5 seconds make it happen.
|
Originally posted by zoom44 actually ike it was canzoomer who saw the dyno problem in the first place. he knows and still talks about the problem. that is why he does much of the tuning based on street runs. quick runs on the dyno don't cause it but runs over(i think he said) 5 seconds make it happen. Ike |
Originally posted by IkeWRX 1.) Those 5.9s in the mags were done with a pre production car with the j spec ECU. 2.) Trap speeds don't lie (most of the time :p), and 0-60 times aren't as good an indication of a cars HP. 3.) Do you really think Limp mode, safe mode whatever you want to call it is safe if it drops the car a whooping 20hp... it's designed to save the engine/drivetrain and possibly even people. If you think 180hp is safe and 200hp isn't safe then you're wacked. 4.) A stock WRX weighs around 3k, it has the advantage of an AWD launch but in most cases doesn't get more than 170hp to the wheels, it goes 0-60 in the mid 5s with a proper launch. 5.) The Nissan Altima has run 5.9 0-60 weighs 3200 lbs and is FWD with a claimed 245chp, and that's with the disadvantage of FWD. There are other cars I could use as an example 6.) Look up occam's razor. 1) Lack of evidence. You are assuming it was a pre-production car and even then that the ECU was j-spec. It was posed elsewhere... it seems improbable that Mazda suddenly remembers or suddenly learns of EPAII and has to do a reflash in port. This is too basic, too important and something of the level that it has to be accounted for during development for it have been so easily overlooked. 2) Yep... and because of it... you can still have 1) be performed wiith a pre-production US-spec ECU and still get the numbers. 3) limp mode isn't saying dropping 20hp is safer for the engine. Use your head! The exhaust temps from the Renesis are HOT! Running the car repeatedly on a dyno will make for a hot engine and even hotter exhaust system. In order to preserve to the cat. at minimum and likely to just prevent overal overheating. In terms of driving saftey... just the same as the principle of TCS... instead of only having brakes through ABS, now there is also A/F mix and timing retard to use as tools to control the output and application of power. 5) The Altima may weigh 200lbs or so more, but it also has 245hp instead of 238hp or even 220hp. So what was your point? 6) supports what I said about #1 as well... |
Didn't Motor Trend just get a 0-60 time of 6 seconds in that last comparison? Pretty darn close to 5.9, doncha think?
|
Originally posted by Japan8 I'm not entirely doubting the 220hp... nor do I accept it. I haven't driven a US-spec car yet, so I can't say exactly, however... 1) Lack of evidence. You are assuming it was a pre-production car and even then that the ECU was j-spec. It was posed elsewhere... it seems improbable that Mazda suddenly remembers or suddenly learns of EPAII and has to do a reflash in port. This is too basic, too important and something of the level that it has to be accounted for during development for it have been so easily overlooked. 2) Yep... and because of it... you can still have 1) be performed wiith a pre-production US-spec ECU and still get the numbers. 3) limp mode isn't saying dropping 20hp is safer for the engine. Use your head! The exhaust temps from the Renesis are HOT! Running the car repeatedly on a dyno will make for a hot engine and even hotter exhaust system. In order to preserve to the cat. at minimum and likely to just prevent overal overheating. In terms of driving saftey... just the same as the principle of TCS... instead of only having brakes through ABS, now there is also A/F mix and timing retard to use as tools to control the output and application of power. 5) The Altima may weigh 200lbs or so more, but it also has 245hp instead of 238hp or even 220hp. So what was your point? 6) supports what I said about #1 as well... 1.) No I'm not, it's stated in the magazines that the early tests were pre production cars. If you find it so improbable then talk to Mazda, are you saying Mazda is lying and they didn't do anything to the ECUs? 2.) Unless you go through 2 trannys in the process I haven't seen anyone come close yet. But I have seen some 15s in person. 3.) You should use your head, the heat that is created on a dyno is nothing compared to what a car will go through during agressive driving on a street, extended high speeds on a highway, or a track day/autox. Dyno runs are short and easy on a car. Also, if they were concerned with heat I don't think the wheels is a good place to put the sensors... I did say something about the safety of the driver, which you also mentioned, and my point is that a drop of 20hp isn't going to save any driver if they are going out of control. 5.) My point is the car weighs more, has a disadvantage based on FWD, and can run the same times as an RX-8 and will run those times or close to it more consitently. If you think it's the 7hp then oh well, I give up arguing... 6.) Not really, your scenario is no more likely than mine. You claim Mazda lied about changing the ECU, I claim they lied about the HP as a result of them changing the ECU. Whether the 247 was ever correct in the first place doesn't really matter in either scenario. Japan8, lets not let this get nasty and discuss this like adults, I really don't want this thread to turn into a big flamefest. Thanks, Ike |
Originally posted by Elara Didn't Motor Trend just get a 0-60 time of 6 seconds in that last comparison? Pretty darn close to 5.9, doncha think? |
Originally posted by IkeWRX 1.) No I'm not, it's stated in the magazines that the early tests were pre production cars. If you find it so improbable then talk to Mazda, are you saying Mazda is lying and they didn't do anything to the ECUs? 2.) Unless you go through 2 trannys in the process I haven't seen anyone come close yet. But I have seen some 15s in person. 3.) You should use your head, the heat that is created on a dyno is nothing compared to what a car will go through during agressive driving on a street, extended high speeds on a highway, or a track day/autox. Dyno runs are short and easy on a car. Also, if they were concerned with heat I don't think the wheels is a good place to put the sensors... I did say something about the safety of the driver, which you also mentioned, and my point is that a drop of 20hp isn't going to save any driver if they are going out of control. 5.) My point is the car weighs more, has a disadvantage based on FWD, and can run the same times as an RX-8 and will run those times or close to it more consitently. If you think it's the 7hp then oh well, I give up arguing... 6.) Not really, your scenario is no more likely than mine. You claim Mazda lied about changing the ECU, I claim they lied about the HP as a result of them changing the ECU. Whether the 247 was ever correct in the first place doesn't really matter in either scenario. Japan8, lets not let this get nasty and discuss this like adults, I really don't want this thread to turn into a big flamefest. Thanks, Ike 2) I read about the runs at the drag strip... two trannys is only the beginning. This kinda thing makes me worry about how it will hold up with FI added. 3) & 4) You neglect the lack of air moving on a dyno. That plays more than just a passing part in cooling the engine, exhaust, etc. The sensors aren't heat sensors, it's from the ABS/TSC/DSC systems. The wheel would be the place to detect wheel slippage, correct? Even read on BMW's interntional site... limp mode isn't a figment of people's imagination. BMW has it on the 3-series and M3. The M3 CSL is reporgrammed to give better launches and allow you to take the care closer to the limits before the computer cuts in. It's not unreasonable to think that Mazda employed a similar system on the 8 What about the CEL's that many (not all... I know) people have been getting when they try to dyno their cars? There's gotta be something to that... 5) Nah you're right... 7hp is just on the edge of you can actually notice/feel a difference. 6) I think what we have here is... Mazda is full of BS. Now what the exact details of it are... well we can come up with equally plausible senarios all day and they'll get us no closer to the truth... No one is trying to get "personal" here. This is online forum stuff... I don't take it so seriously... just a good source for info and some mental exercise. |
Originally posted by Japan8 1) Odd as it seemed like it took forever to see a review come out. But I am not in the States, I don't have a subscription... just whenever I can pick one up or catch it on the mag's web site. What point is there in using a pre-prod unit?? Mazda has less issues of timing to worry about in releasing the 8 than other models in other market segments. Am I wrong thus far? Maybe Mazda did indeed use pre-prod. units... and someone should be fired for it. It just didn't seem like that to me, nor did it say that in the articles I read on M/T, C/D, R/D... 2) I read about the runs at the drag strip... two trannys is only the beginning. This kinda thing makes me worry about how it will hold up with FI added. 3) & 4) You neglect the lack of air moving on a dyno. That plays more than just a passing part in cooling the engine, exhaust, etc. The sensors aren't heat sensors, it's from the ABS/TSC/DSC systems. The wheel would be the place to detect wheel slippage, correct? Even read on BMW's interntional site... limp mode isn't a figment of people's imagination. BMW has it on the 3-series and M3. The M3 CSL is reporgrammed to give better launches and allow you to take the care closer to the limits before the computer cuts in. It's not unreasonable to think that Mazda employed a similar system on the 8 What about the CEL's that many (not all... I know) people have been getting when they try to dyno their cars? There's gotta be something to that... 5) Nah you're right... 7hp is just on the edge of you can actually notice/feel a difference. 6) I think what we have here is... Mazda is full of BS. Now what the exact details of it are... well we can come up with equally plausible senarios all day and they'll get us no closer to the truth... No one is trying to get "personal" here. This is online forum stuff... I don't take it so seriously... just a good source for info and some mental exercise. 1.) Go back and read the April 03 C&D they clearly state it is a pre-production car in the second to last sentence, this same car was used for the tests in other magazines as well. Keep in mind that magazine was available for sale in February (don't ask me why we do this), and the test was probably conducted in 2002. If you don't believe me and can't find the Mag I can provide you with a link to the article. The RX-8 was not released until July/August in the US. 2.) Time will tell... 3.) Have you ever seen a dyno in person, there's usually huge fans in front of the car to simulate the air flow that would occur if the car were moving. Yes the wheels would be the place to detect slippage, in particular the rear wheels which I believe is where the sensors actually work on the RX-8. I'm not saying the RX-8 doesn't have limp or safe mode, I'm just saying in the RX-8s case I don't think it's been corrupting most (maybe all) of the dyno results, for whatever reason that may be. 6.) No arguments here, and I still think Mazda is trying to pull a fast one, just like they were the first time around, or when they lied about remapping the ECUs depending on which of our conspiracy theories you want to believe. :p |
Originally posted by IkeWRX MNA execs sit in their offices biting their fingernails trying to figure out what excuse to come up with next. |
Originally posted by IkeWRX 1.) Go back and read the April 03 C&D they clearly state it is a pre-production car in the second to last sentence, this same car was used for the tests in other magazines as well. Keep in mind that magazine was available for sale in February (don't ask me why we do this), and the test was probably conducted in 2002. If you don't believe me and can't find the Mag I can provide you with a link to the article. The RX-8 was not released until July/August in the US. 2.) Time will tell... 3.) Have you ever seen a dyno in person, there's usually huge fans in front of the car to simulate the air flow that would occur if the car were moving. Yes the wheels would be the place to detect slippage, in particular the rear wheels which I believe is where the sensors actually work on the RX-8. I'm not saying the RX-8 doesn't have limp or safe mode, I'm just saying in the RX-8s case I don't think it's been corrupting most (maybe all) of the dyno results, for whatever reason that may be. 6.) No arguments here, and I still think Mazda is trying to pull a fast one, just like they were the first time around, or when they lied about remapping the ECUs depending on which of our conspiracy theories you want to believe. :p You do have a point about the '02 testing... probably did it that way. But then we should just think that RX-8 + $500 CZ mod will equal those numbers or better. 2)indeed... O_o 3) I've seen dynos on tv, and only bikes in person (not cars). I do know about the fan... I just feel that a dyno run in the central Florida high 90's and 100% humidity will result in crappy numbers. I just don't think that one fan is enough. 6) :p Indeed... Mazda has really been trying to pull quite a few fast ones recently... |
Originally posted by Japan8 1) I don't have that issue. I believe you, but I wouldn't mind reading the article. If you have the link on hand I'd love to check it out. You do have a point about the '02 testing... probably did it that way. But then we should just think that RX-8 + $500 CZ mod will equal those numbers or better. 2)indeed... O_o 3) I've seen dynos on tv, and only bikes in person (not cars). I do know about the fan... I just feel that a dyno run in the central Florida high 90's and 100% humidity will result in crappy numbers. I just don't think that one fan is enough. 6) :p Indeed... Mazda has really been trying to pull quite a few fast ones recently... 3.) Most worthwhile dynos are indoors in an airconditioned building. |
Originally posted by IkeWRX 1.) http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=5 3.) Most worthwhile dynos are indoors in an airconditioned building. Thanks for the link. |
Originally posted by Japan8 1) I don't have that issue. I believe you, but I wouldn't mind reading the article. If you have the link on hand I'd love to check it out. You do have a point about the '02 testing... probably did it that way. But then we should just think that RX-8 + $500 CZ mod will equal those numbers or better. 2)indeed... O_o 3) I've seen dynos on tv, and only bikes in person (not cars). I do know about the fan... I just feel that a dyno run in the central Florida high 90's and 100% humidity will result in crappy numbers. I just don't think that one fan is enough. 6) :p Indeed... Mazda has really been trying to pull quite a few fast ones recently... We had a great setup and I think it was around 70 outside. |
Originally posted by IkeWRX 1.) Those 5.9s in the mags were done with a pre production car with the j spec ECU. 2.) Trap speeds don't lie (most of the time :p), and 0-60 times aren't as good an indication of a cars HP. 3.) Do you really think Limp mode, safe mode whatever you want to call it is safe if it drops the car a whooping 20hp... it's designed to save the engine/drivetrain and possibly even people. If you think 180hp is safe and 200hp isn't safe then you're wacked. 4.) A stock WRX weighs around 3k, it has the advantage of an AWD launch but in most cases doesn't get more than 170hp to the wheels, it goes 0-60 in the mid 5s with a proper launch. 5.) The Nissan Altima has run 5.9 0-60 weighs 3200 lbs and is FWD with a claimed 245chp, and that's with the disadvantage of FWD. There are other cars I could use as an example 6.) Look up occam's razor. 1. Just about every recent magazine AND show that has tested a 238 hp RX-8 has gotten 5.9 - 6.1 seconds 2. Trap speed can be an indication of gearing. For example on my 1969 GTO with 3.73 gears I trapped at 103 mph at 13.8 seconds. I put 4.33s in the rear and trapped 98 mph at 13.6 seconds 4. Yes, but a stock WRX has alot more torque than an RX-8, that's why I used the S2000 and Celica GT-S for my comparisons (all three are low torque engines) 5. Again, the Nissan Altima has much more Torque. You cannot (alright YOU can) compare a high torque car to a low torque for acceleration/hp/weight comparo as we are doing. 6. I know Occam's razor - do you? |
Originally posted by IkeWRX ...[in] the April 03 C&D they clearly state it is a pre-production car in the second to last sentence, this same car was used for the tests in other magazines as well. Keep in mind that magazine was available for sale in February (don't ask me why we do this), and the test was probably conducted in 2002 |
The trap speeds do not measure up to Mazda's power claims. Put aside ETs and 0-60 for a moment. A more reliable indicator of power/weight ratio is speed at the end of a 1320. I'm inclined to think Ike is correct.
A 3,000ish lb. car with the 8's gearing should be trapping 100+ mph if it were making almost 240 hp. For example, a Mustang GT (260hp) traps 100. A BMW E36 M3 (240 hp) traps 99. The S2000 (240hp) traps 99 as well. The RX-8 is trapping about 95 mph +/- 1 mph in most reliable publications. This is about the same as a Boxster (217 hp), 330Ci (225 hp) and WRX (227 hp). All of these cars are even heavier than the 8, except the Porsche, which is about the same. If the 8 is lighter and supposedly makes more power, why don't the trap speeds reflect this? (For those of you who want to get into gearing, we can do that. However, I'll tell you now the cars are geared close enough together that it won't matter much, except for the Porsche which is geared pretty tall.) I doubt it's 238 or even close. 210-215 sounds like a more likely number. In fact, if you multiply the 180 whp number with a typical drivetrain loss figure of 17%, you get --whatdoyaknow? 210.6. I don't think any of this would stop me from buy an RX-8. But I do know if I want to run with an S2000 or GT in the 8, I will need CanZoomer's mod. M |
trapping at 100mph??
ok guys, this could go on forever, and arguing with IKE is a lost cause. He seems to think he is the "alll knowing car god"?? although I do think some of your points are valid? Look at the HP of the G35, weight etc. It does not trap at over 100mph And yes, the production car has been timed at pulling 6secs from 0-60. But like the S2k, you have to work the clutch, and RPMS ! Just a side note, on Sunday night, I went to a buddies place who has now had his G35 for a few mths (2003). We went out for a late snack, and he pulled beside me on the freeway. I am pretty much done the breakin phase (almost), and he floored it. I matted it as well, but didn't want to push it to hard. From about 45mph to 85, we were almost side by side. Them's the facts ! |
I don't think they should be trapping 100+ but more around 97-99, most people that have taken their cars to the strip haven't even been able to pull off a 95.
|
I guess IkeWRX is biting his nails to come up with reasons why he bought that ugly subaru. Nevertheless 180hp at wheels seems reasonable. To give you some reliable data Honda Accord LX v6 rated at 200hp measures 151 hp at wheels (looks like a 25% loss), Ford Mustang GT rated at 260 measures 193hp at wheels (almost 26% loss), saab 9-5 aero rated at 230hp/ 180 at wheels (22% loss). So dont be bitching at 180 at wheels with 238 at crank it is only 24% loss. Sound reasonable doesnt it? One more issue is that there might be a limp mode. For example you cannot dyno m3 since it limits revs at 6300rpm (7900rpm peak) when front wheels are not spinning. Mazda might be using a different method air/fuel mixture for example. Anyway if youre not happy with rx8 buy yourself wrx 227 hp - 165 at wheels (27% loss) yeah, yeah I know its awd - two more diffs to propel... but its ugly as hell...
data source: c&d, nov 2001, "regular or premium" by Frank Markus, page 134 |
Hey some more info on the limp mode (turborx8renesis is builiding turbo for rx8 renesis as his name suggests):
Originally posted by turboRX8renesis (...)Luckily there is an all-wheel drive dyno near my shop that I can use to tune my car. As I'm sure most of you know, you have to use an all-wheel drive dyno due to the DSC and ABS control systems built into the car. The car has to sense the front wheels moving in order to give full power to the rear wheels. Originally posted by turboRX8renesis Unfortunatley, I didn't test it before I started the project. It wasn't till after I started the project and was reading up on the PCM's controls and limits that I realized it had to be dyno'd on an AWD. I was wondering, at the begining, why the dyno numbers I'd seen had been so low. |
Okay now IF HP and weight are indicative of trap speed, then HOW do you explain the Lotus Esprit V8 performance:
3043 lbs/350 HP/295 TQ/0-60 4.4 seconds, 1/4 mile 13 seconds with a trap speed of 102.8 mph. Does that mean the Lotus is only putting out approx 200 hp to the rear wheels?-lol (going by some of the formulas I have seen it would indicate so). You cannot tell how much HP is at the rear wheels by trap speed. You can take an educated GUESS, but that is all. If the magazine testers (as bad as some are) who test cars for a living thought the HP numbers were incorrect, they would do an expose on it. |
I just got to this thread, read it, and really only have one thing to say. I hate going into limp mode, it really sucks.
Seriously, I didn't buy this car for its incredible hp #'s. I have my semi dyno queen with the FD (or it will be when it is all fixed and running happily). Like most of us, I bought this car for its mix of all around performance, looks and its level of refinement for a sporting car. If the car only is getting around 210 bhp and a corresponding 180 rwhp, well I am disappointed, but the car still is pretty quick and a blast to drive. I am not going to bitch anymore about having a car without tons of HP, other than the 7 and 8, my 150bhp 88 Porsche 944 was one of my favorite cars to drive. There is much more to a vehicle than the hp #'s. Although if Mazda is lying to us still, it is ridiculous. BTW, I am much more fired up about my poor fuel consumption. |
Broker73, the G35 weighs 3500 lbs and makes 280. This gives it a power/weight very close to a Mustang GT. I've also seen several 100s in various magazines. In fact C&D got one of theirs to 101.
Vrimmick, '01+ Mustang GTs dyno closer to 206-215 whp. And 240 hp E36 M3s dyno about 205-208 whp. I see 16-20% as reasonable drivetrain loss for a RWD performance car, especially one with a carbon prop shaft like the 8. 24-26% is just ridiculous. 6speed8, of course trap speed is a good indicator of power/weight ratio. If two cars travel the same distance, each accelerating, the car that is travelling at the faster speed at the end of the distance is pulling away from the other. This isn't something I made up... trap speed as an indicator of power/weight/gearing is a widely accepted concept. As for the Esprit, perhaps it was tested in 100% humidity at 105 degrees. Perhaps there was something wrong with the car. Perhaps a certin was driving. It is British after all, and a turbo at that. Is this figure from a reliable source? Personally, I don't see why this is so hard to come to terms with. The 8 is still a fantastic car that I would be happy to own. I just don't see a reason to fool myself into thinking I'm buying 28 more hp than I actually am. And even with ~210, its still a hoot to drive. M |
ok, so I guess I must have been dreaming??.....give me a break. I have seen a few mag times of 14.5 1/4 mile for the G35. Puts it pretty close to the 8. We ran side by side up until 85mph. The G35 peeks out very early as far as power. Or so it seemed when I drove it. The 8 pulls harder after 5000.
I like how guys in their expert opinion are guessing at what power the 8 makes. I guess I should tell my buddy since he didn't pull away, his car must only make 250??:p anyway, I don't like to screw around at high sppeds on the street. I didn't buy the car for that, but next time when I have a few more miles on it, we will run them side by side from a dead stop. It will be interesting But I think even he was surprised at how close we were from 45-85. The 8 is deceiving, but there seems to be a few guys on here that have spent little or no time in the car, yet claim to know how it runs in comparison to others?? Now that is funny |
Originally posted by Vrimmick I guess IkeWRX is biting his nails to come up with reasons why he bought that ugly subaru. Nevertheless 180hp at wheels seems reasonable. To give you some reliable data Honda Accord LX v6 rated at 200hp measures 151 hp at wheels (looks like a 25% loss), Ford Mustang GT rated at 260 measures 193hp at wheels (almost 26% loss), saab 9-5 aero rated at 230hp/ 180 at wheels (22% loss). So dont be bitching at 180 at wheels with 238 at crank it is only 24% loss. Sound reasonable doesnt it? One more issue is that there might be a limp mode. For example you cannot dyno m3 since it limits revs at 6300rpm (7900rpm peak) when front wheels are not spinning. Mazda might be using a different method air/fuel mixture for example. Anyway if youre not happy with rx8 buy yourself wrx 227 hp - 165 at wheels (27% loss) yeah, yeah I know its awd - two more diffs to propel... but its ugly as hell... data source: c&d, nov 2001, "regular or premium" by Frank Markus, page 134 If you think 24% drivetrain loss with a 6MT and RWD is reasonable then I want some of what you're smoking. I give up guys, you win, it's 238 hp and I have no idea what I'm talking about. Plus it's just as fast as the G35. |
LOL, I think the RX8 and G35 are both putting down magazine numbers that are not achivable by most drivers-conditions.
If any Rx8 owners are up for a quick race the plesure will be all mine... (Ohio) |
Are the G techs accurate for measuring lateral Gs? .93 Gs is probably the best I've seen for the 8.
|
They are pretty good. The surface he was testing was very very HI traction.
|
Originally posted by IkeWRX I'll have to go back and read the thread more closely when I get time, I thought it was wheelspin over 5 seconds or closer to something like that. I also thought him not doing a lot of dyno runs was more a problem of access to a dyno. but like I said, it's been a while so I'll have to skim over the thread(s) again when I get time. Ike |
Originally posted by ///M-Spec Broker73, the G35 weighs 3500 lbs and makes 280. This gives it a power/weight very close to a Mustang GT. I've also seen several 100s in various magazines. In fact C&D got one of theirs to 101. Vrimmick, '01+ Mustang GTs dyno closer to 206-215 whp. And 240 hp E36 M3s dyno about 205-208 whp. I see 16-20% as reasonable drivetrain loss for a RWD performance car, especially one with a carbon prop shaft like the 8. 24-26% is just ridiculous. 6speed8, of course trap speed is a good indicator of power/weight ratio. If two cars travel the same distance, each accelerating, the car that is travelling at the faster speed at the end of the distance is pulling away from the other. This isn't something I made up... trap speed as an indicator of power/weight/gearing is a widely accepted concept. As for the Esprit, perhaps it was tested in 100% humidity at 105 degrees. Perhaps there was something wrong with the car. Perhaps a certin was driving. It is British after all, and a turbo at that. Is this figure from a reliable source? Personally, I don't see why this is so hard to come to terms with. The 8 is still a fantastic car that I would be happy to own. I just don't see a reason to fool myself into thinking I'm buying 28 more hp than I actually am. And even with ~210, its still a hoot to drive. M |
Originally posted by Broker73 ok, so I guess I must have been dreaming??.....give me a break. I have seen a few mag times of 14.5 1/4 mile for the G35. Puts it pretty close to the 8. Originally posted by Broker73 We ran side by side up until 85mph. The G35 peeks out very early as far as power. Or so it seemed when I drove it. The 8 pulls harder after 5000. The difference between a car that traps 95 and one that traps 99-100 is very slight until 80-85+. I can keep up with an LS1 F-body in my 240 hp M3 until the middle of 3rd gear (about 80mph), after which they will pull hard away from me. After 100 mph, it gets ugly. I once raced a 300hp FC and he didn't pull until 3rd. Very often you'll hear people say 3rd or 4th is the 'money gear'; the point after which they will pull on a slower car. Also, any number of factors, driver skill being a major one can affect the outcome. Was your friend's car a 6MT coupe? Did you get a jump on him, and he followed after he saw you go WOT? (if so, that was 1-2 seconds right there) Was he in the correct gear and in the power band? Originally posted by Broker73 I like how guys in their expert opinion are guessing at what power the 8 makes. I guess I should tell my buddy since he didn't pull away, his car must only make 250??:p SNIP The 8 is deceiving, but there seems to be a few guys on here that have spent little or no time in the car, yet claim to know how it runs in comparison to others?? Now that is funny M |
I guess we can debate about the issue and beat it up to death and we will never find out what the real hp is. We might compare trap times, dyno measures etc. but there are too many variables to assess power by those derivatives. Unless somebody will take the engine out and measure it... if it is possible. IkeWRX I was kidding about your subaru it is a sharp ride :D BTW do you really want what I am smoking???
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands