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

Now this has to be the best line thus for... almost fell off my chair.. LOL..

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...

1.) http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=5

3.) Most worthwhile dynos are indoors in an airconditioned building.

Not really in Japan... the buildings are "air conditioned." You'll understand that one if you come live here sometime. I'll just say that the A/C barely does its job. And then they open the garage door to let out the exhaust. Since all shops here are tiny... that fan isn't so big...

Thanks for the link.

Read my post....

We had a great setup and I think it was around 70 outside.

Ike,

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?

Good point. This was more than 6 months ahead of the US launch. Mazda were still claiming at this point that the US and Japanese cars would make the same power. It is quite possible Mazda honestly thought that with another few months development they could still squeeze 250 hp out of the US cars. So naturally they offered cars for performance testing that would be representative of what they planned to be selling in the US in 6 months time - i.e. cars producing 250 hp.

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):
I think it explains it a little.

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

And I guess you're to lazy to not just cut and paste the same thing twice. I'm very happy with my purchase thank you, and I don't find it ugly. Your numbers for the dynos are also way out of wack, but I'm not going to waste my time on you coming up with reliable sources for what those cars really dyno at.

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.

:D Precisely, and that is why we see decent 0-60 times before the detune kicks in and retards the timing. Maurices ABS trick lets the car run for 20 sec before a detune from the ECU kicks in, which is more than long enough for and accurate dyno run. Now for a bit of dry humor. Who is that second bannana in your avatar?

A typical front drive car(Honda) will have a 15 to 20% drivetrain loss. Carbon fiber shaft or not, a rear wheel drive car is not going to have less energy loss traveling the extra distance to the rear wheels. We all know BMW understates their power ratings and for good reason, take a look at the problem Mazda had, it cost them big time $. There are just to many variables between new cars and technology today and some of these may be witheld from public knowledge, making it very hard to compare.

You are confusing the automatic sedan (260) and the 6MT coupe (280). The 6 speed coupe is quite a bit faster.

What you fell is the VQ motor running out of breath after 6k. The torque comes on early then checks out at the top end, like a domestic V8.

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?


If you disagree with me, that's fine. But it sounds like you are dismissing a valid observation because it was supplied by a non-owner --something I notice happens a lot here. I don't have to own a car to look at timeslips and realize something is not adding up. A stock 8 consistantly posts times equal to cars it should be beating (330i, Boxster, WRX). Go read one of Canzoomer's threads. Even he suspects the real hp is less than 238, and closer to 215-220.


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???