rx8 vs 3rd gen RX-7 handling...
12-25-2004, 09:35 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use my FD to rip and my 8 to tour. Got rid of stock seats in FD so back problems are out.
The back end seems to come out quicker on the FD than the 8. I am running 19 AVS yoks
on the FD and 18 bridge on the 8. The FD is timeless beauty as the 8 is todays pretty, yes
I love them both.
The back end seems to come out quicker on the FD than the 8. I am running 19 AVS yoks
on the FD and 18 bridge on the 8. The FD is timeless beauty as the 8 is todays pretty, yes
I love them both.
01-12-2013, 11:59 AM
#58
i just drove an FD for the first time in a really long time the other day, and the original poster is right on the money, the Rx8 is just way more intuitive than the FD.
the Rx8 is almost telepathic, and its very quick. the FD is a lot harder to drive, the feedback the driver gets is not confidence inspiring, power delivery is totally random until you get a lot of seat time.
the FD is way more fun as a street car, the power delivery of the sequential twins make it feel so fast (even though its not), its totally unique that way.
so in summary, Rx8 = intuitively fast. FD = fun in a straight line, but scary in the mountains
the Rx8 is almost telepathic, and its very quick. the FD is a lot harder to drive, the feedback the driver gets is not confidence inspiring, power delivery is totally random until you get a lot of seat time.
the FD is way more fun as a street car, the power delivery of the sequential twins make it feel so fast (even though its not), its totally unique that way.
so in summary, Rx8 = intuitively fast. FD = fun in a straight line, but scary in the mountains
01-12-2013, 02:06 PM
#60
Registered
01-13-2013, 01:48 PM
#61
Rotary Evolution
the 8 has a few hundred lbs more curb weight and a higher center of gravity, so it's at a disadvantage to the 7.
the 8 also has decent braking for the standard brakes versus the FD's 4 pot calipers, when taking into account the above as well.
overall i'd say it drives much nicer than the 7, but the 7 outperforms it in braking and suspension grip but if the playing field were even the 8 would probably come out slightly ahead. it is built more as a comfortable sport 4 seat semi-luxury car compared to the 7 which is built as a pure performance sports car with as much feedback built in(or lack thereof) as possible.
the 8 also has decent braking for the standard brakes versus the FD's 4 pot calipers, when taking into account the above as well.
overall i'd say it drives much nicer than the 7, but the 7 outperforms it in braking and suspension grip but if the playing field were even the 8 would probably come out slightly ahead. it is built more as a comfortable sport 4 seat semi-luxury car compared to the 7 which is built as a pure performance sports car with as much feedback built in(or lack thereof) as possible.
Last edited by Karack; 01-13-2013 at 01:51 PM.
01-14-2013, 01:47 PM
#62
01-14-2013, 03:44 PM
#63
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Take Laguna Seca for example, I have seen claims of pretty heavily modded FD RX-7's running 1:43-1:47's. Brian Goodwin (spec Miata racer) ran a 1:49 in basically stock RX-8 so I would assume a stock FD would get trounced by a stock RX-8.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
01-14-2013, 06:47 PM
#64
Take Laguna Seca for example, I have seen claims of pretty heavily modded FD RX-7's running 1:43-1:47's. Brian Goodwin (spec Miata racer) ran a 1:49 in basically stock RX-8 so I would assume a stock FD would get trounced by a stock RX-8.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
although we do have in car footage of our non vtek honda passing an F355 Ferarri in a race, so yes, the driver plays a HUGE role.
01-15-2013, 07:15 AM
#65
Registered
Take Laguna Seca for example, I have seen claims of pretty heavily modded FD RX-7's running 1:43-1:47's. Brian Goodwin (spec Miata racer) ran a 1:49 in basically stock RX-8 so I would assume a stock FD would get trounced by a stock RX-8.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
Heck, what's even more disturbing is that a stock Mazdaspeed 3 is faster than both of them by quite a bit. But of course a ton depends on the driver so comparing cars is silly unless you are talking about the same driver on the same course, in the same conditions.
The published figures for both cars - out of the assembly line - show the FD has both more horsepower and torque than the RX-8.
I've been under the impression that torque refers to how fast the engine is able to reach it's max power.
Last edited by pistonhater; 01-15-2013 at 01:51 PM.
01-15-2013, 10:37 AM
#66
01-15-2013, 11:21 AM
#67
Because horsepower matters. Torque, within reason, doesn't. Torque is not even "power", it is a moment of force. Horsepower is power, more specifically it's the at which work is being performed.
Examples:
1) Rocket powered dragster. Zero torque engine, 3 second 1/4 mile.
2) Fat guy on a bicycle. 300 lb-ft of torque @ 10 rpm, 200 second 1/4 mile.
3) Renny RX-8. 150 lb-ft of torque @ ~5000 rpm, 16 second 1/4 mile.
If you want to play with numbers, it's here: https://www.rx8club.com/tech-garage-...2/#post2474596
The comparable between a car engine and rocket engine is power. Though if you wish, one can measure thrust at a normal tire's surface-to-ground interface for comparison. Power = Thrust x Velocity.
HP = (Torque x rpm) / 5252, assuming SAE units. Half the torque at double the rpm is exactly the same as double the torque at half the rpm.
For acceleration over some time period, what matters is the total energy given the car during that period (and the car's mass). An "peaky" hp output may not deliver as much energy than an engine with a "broad" hp output that has a lower maximum. This effect can also be true in comparing two cars with the same engine, but with different gearing.
01-15-2013, 11:51 AM
#68
Legend In My Own Mind
01-15-2013, 12:30 PM
#70
Legend In My Own Mind
It's a proven fact that the Isuzu V6 is the most underrated and well built engine ever in existence. I can show you the thread with tons of graphs to prove it.
01-15-2013, 01:02 PM
#72
Stock for stock, the FD would lose in handling because it came out with poor tires and suspension but even with that disadvantage it did pull off high Gs. I think that if you're talking about reasonably modded cars, the FD would trounce an 8. The aftermarket for FDs is just so mature. The weight advantage and lower center of gravity helps the FD alot here and the FD can beat the stiffer chassis of the 8 with some bracing.
As far as comparing track times, it's pretty much pointless. I think we can all agree that Sabine Schmit can probably beat all of us in a minivan even if we were all driving Lambos.
So back to the thread reviver, I think the R3 will beat a stock FD. If you put more modern tires and an actual viable suspension on the FD, I think the FD will beat the R3. Alot of people forget how important tires are to handling. I think alot of cars owe their higher performance numbers due to better tires alone.
As far as comparing track times, it's pretty much pointless. I think we can all agree that Sabine Schmit can probably beat all of us in a minivan even if we were all driving Lambos.
So back to the thread reviver, I think the R3 will beat a stock FD. If you put more modern tires and an actual viable suspension on the FD, I think the FD will beat the R3. Alot of people forget how important tires are to handling. I think alot of cars owe their higher performance numbers due to better tires alone.
Last edited by Supernaut6; 01-15-2013 at 01:05 PM.
01-15-2013, 01:42 PM
#73
Registered
Perhaps you could beat the lap of your RX-8 ridding on a space shuttle instead
Your understanding is faulty.
Because horsepower matters. Torque, within reason, doesn't. Torque is not even "power", it is a moment of force. Horsepower is power, more specifically it's the at which work is being performed.
Examples:
1) Rocket powered dragster. Zero torque engine, 3 second 1/4 mile.
2) Fat guy on a bicycle. 300 lb-ft of torque @ 10 rpm, 200 second 1/4 mile.
3) Renny RX-8. 150 lb-ft of torque @ ~5000 rpm, 16 second 1/4 mile.
If you want to play with numbers, it's here: https://www.rx8club.com/tech-garage-...2/#post2474596
The comparable between a car engine and rocket engine is power. Though if you wish, one can measure thrust at a normal tire's surface-to-ground interface for comparison. Power = Thrust x Velocity.
HP = (Torque x rpm) / 5252, assuming SAE units. Half the torque at double the rpm is exactly the same as double the torque at half the rpm.
For acceleration over some time period, what matters is the total energy given the car during that period (and the car's mass). An "peaky" hp output may not deliver as much energy than an engine with a "broad" hp output that has a lower maximum. This effect can also be true in comparing two cars with the same engine, but with different gearing.
Because horsepower matters. Torque, within reason, doesn't. Torque is not even "power", it is a moment of force. Horsepower is power, more specifically it's the at which work is being performed.
Examples:
1) Rocket powered dragster. Zero torque engine, 3 second 1/4 mile.
2) Fat guy on a bicycle. 300 lb-ft of torque @ 10 rpm, 200 second 1/4 mile.
3) Renny RX-8. 150 lb-ft of torque @ ~5000 rpm, 16 second 1/4 mile.
If you want to play with numbers, it's here: https://www.rx8club.com/tech-garage-...2/#post2474596
The comparable between a car engine and rocket engine is power. Though if you wish, one can measure thrust at a normal tire's surface-to-ground interface for comparison. Power = Thrust x Velocity.
HP = (Torque x rpm) / 5252, assuming SAE units. Half the torque at double the rpm is exactly the same as double the torque at half the rpm.
For acceleration over some time period, what matters is the total energy given the car during that period (and the car's mass). An "peaky" hp output may not deliver as much energy than an engine with a "broad" hp output that has a lower maximum. This effect can also be true in comparing two cars with the same engine, but with different gearing.
Again, could we use examples that are similar?
But I see what you mean, and I stand corrected. I didn't mean to imply hp is not important or that torque alone is all there is. HP and torque obviously go together.
All I meant to say is that if you put two "similar" engines together side by side, the engine producing more torque will likely accelerate faster - or reach its top power/speed - than the other.
Perhaps I didn't articulate what I meant to say correctly. I edited my earlier post to clarify.
Last edited by pistonhater; 01-15-2013 at 01:51 PM.
01-15-2013, 01:58 PM
#74
So true. Our Miata Club had an all-day autocross class somewhere in Michigan many years ago. During lunch, one of the very experienced instructors climbed into her minivan and did a lap faster than anyone in their Miata. Wasn't even close!