BenHayat

Hi guys;

This question is for those who have had a chance to drive the RX-8.

When you start the car, WITHOUT reving up and dropping the clutch at first, let the car gets to 5 mph, and then step on the gas. From this point on, to get to 60:

1) Is the acceleration linear?
2) What other car would be similar to?
3) At what rpm do you notice the surge building up?

I like to get a feel for the car as I would be driving it in a normal day-to-day driving when you're not drag racing, but like to have a nice acceleration.

Thank you in advance!

DonG35Miata

I think the RX-8's acceleration with just the driver probably compares to a Honda S2000 with a 150-175 lb passenger riding shotgun. Surge starts at 6,000, just like the Honda.

The cars are very similar in their power delivery, peak power and torque and curb weights. Testing shows the S2000 to be a mite faster, hence the need for the passenger to bring parity. Big advatage to the RX-8 is that it will not sound like the engine is self-destructing when you go over 7,000 rpms. The S2000 is cacophanous up there.

Spoonie

Here is a quote from Car and Driver (April 2003) G35coupe vs. RX-8 vs. Mustang SVT Cobra comparison test:

"With the help of an 8000-rpm clutch drop and the engine buzzing like a flock of angry hornets, the RX-8 scooted to 60 in 5.9 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds at 96 mph. But that performance falls off considerably without the tire-frying launch. In our street-start test from 5 to 60 mph, the RX-8 needed 7.5 seconds, 1.6 seconds longer than the hard-launch time, which is twice the deficit we found with either of the other cars. And despite its trim weigh and short gearing (20 mph per 1000 rpm in sixth), the RX-8 also had the slowest top-gear acceleration times by a wide margin."

I promised I wouldn't post here again but certain things need to be brought to light. From Car and Drivers impression the RX8 feels slower than its numbers suggest. An 8000 RPM launch was used to generate those numbers. Who's going to do that all the time? Redline launches were not needed to post the Best 0-60 times for the G35. The main culprit is the lack of low-end and midrange torque. High RPMs are needed to bring the best out of the RX8. This may or may not be a good thing depending on how you drive. If you are looking for thrust in the low to mid rev ranges then the RX8 might not be for you. During normal driving the RX8 will not feel as fast as the G35, 330i, 350z, WRX. Now let me hide.



Past thread discussing the RX-8's driveability

Lensman

'The secret to ignoring the Spoonie is that there IS no Spoonie.'
The Matrix (kinda)

Haris

On track, RX8 would probably beat them all. Afterall it looks better than all of those cars too.

DonG35Miata

Why would anyone have a problem with Spoonie? His posts seem to be reasonable and well thought out.

Yeah, the T issue has been beat to death. I know. But a lot of people probably like the RX-8 but are holding back because they think it needs a bit more grunt. So what? Let them participate and don't give them a hard time. They will be the RX-7 and Mazdaspeed RX-8 owners of the future.

Herc would not buy a G35 because he thinks the plastic is too cheap. I bought a G35 because though I also think the plastic could use upgrading, I think the strong points of the car far outweigh this quibble. It's all what is important to YOU.

There is nothing wrong with saying the RX-8 has some shortcomings. In fact, it is DESIREABLE to do so- the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Many people like the G35, but don't think the interior is rich enough and the plastic is too cheap for their tastes, so they hesitate buying one. Guess what the G35 is getting next year? Upgraded interior.

I too think the RX-8 needs more low and midrange grunt. But it is not enough to keep me from buying one. YMMV.

Spoonie

The RX8 was the slowest on the track. Follow the link. A good portion of the Article is quoted there.

"Despite these handling advantages, the RX8 is the slowest on the racetrack, and that because of a shortage of midrange grunt in its rotary engine. Peak power decent at 250 horsepower, but it's developed at 8500 rpm. Torque, however, is a mere 159lbft, down 111 and 231pound-feet on the other two cars, and that comes at 5,500 rpm, which is nearly as high as the other engines peaks. Think Honda S2000 Power band, and you get the idea. "

This subject has been beaten to death.

DonG35Miata

I should also add that I think the RX-8 only needs a MARGINAL increase in torque, and that it should come in lower. It's fun to have a car that you can wind out and this characteristic should be kept. One of my best car buddies and my dad have commented on this. I can't wind out my G35 that often because speed climbs too high, too quickly. My Miata, I can wind out a bit and it is a blast.

I think what the RX-8 needs is enough extra torque so:

1. C&D 5-60 steet start of 6.5-6.7 sec, not 7.5

2. 0-60 in 5.9 without an 8000 rpm clutch drop- something more reasonable like 5,500-6,250.

Is this asking too much? Keep the high-revving character, but make it "feel" faster.

BenHayat

Spoonie;
I appreciate your comment and the quote. I think C&D had done the testing I was asking (5 to 60). In day-to-day driving, sometimes you get caught in a situation that there is no time to build the RPM. A setp on a gas is all the time time you got to get out of a tide bind.

Thanks!

MikeW

The variable induction changes occur at:
3750 second intake port opens
6250 tertiary (power) port comes online
7250 variable resonance + 'ram air' variable fresh air duct

flat torque + increasing rpms = linear power

Spoonie

At the lower REV ranges there is simply not enough torque to provide really good thrust. Even though the delivery is linear, there is simply not enough torque to make a seat in the pant's difference. I'm sure a Geo metro has "linear power", you get my point?

AsianStyle

I really didn't think I was going to see a discussion like this on this board because I always thought the rx8 community was better then those gay people who street race 24/7 and brag about it. Anyways if you are talking about beating a camry or what ever car in a street race as long as your not at a light and your going a decent speed you won't be too far off from the powerband to punch it, throw in a curve on the street and the other car is gone. Yes i understand people want more torque for the car and yes i agree with that statement, but that doesn't mean you should base the car. All that tells you is its not the car for you, if you don't want a s2k like high reving car then don't buy one. I read spoonies post about reving not being good for the engine, the car just like the s2k are built to rev. Why would they give a car a 9k redline if it wasn't suppose to be reved? The car is not going to break down bcuz you rev it hard.

chenpin

Slower by how much? You seem to look at a half filled glass and see that its half empty. Look at it another way, the handling was able to make up for the hp and huge torque deficit. The RX-8 was only slower than the G35c by 0.1s. I agree with Don that the RX-8 should need a bit more torque, but right now it is good enough for me (heck the car will move right?). On the road (not freeway) I agree it will prob not feel faster than competitors.

DonG35Miata

Boy, I always find myself straddling the diehard RX-8 lovers and the people who think the lack of torque is too much for them to accept. Just because you want the car to be more responsive down low doesn't mean you are a homosexual or a street racer.

I like the RX-8 enough to plop $30k down on it. I also agree with Spoonie and the "Torque Trolls" that it should be able to accelerate away from a Camry effortlessly. If you are spending $30k on what Mazda calls a sports car and putting up with less than 20mpg (I am betting this is the RX-8s real-world figure) it should feel effortlessly faster than a family sedan. I doubt he is picking street races with Camrys. Do you really think he is? Listen to what he is saying throughout his posts- he just wants a car that feels fast in everyday driving without revving it past 7,000 rpm all the time, killing fuel economy and yes, probably long-term durability. More rpms=more friction over time and more wear. Simple physics, no getting around it.

People compare the RX-8 to the S2000 and say that because it is like the S2000, it must be great. Have you already forgotten the articles about the S2000 that say it isn't the greatest stop-and-go daily driver because it is kind of weak down low?

Everyone bashes the Torque Trolls, but IMHO the people on here are too sensitive about it in their defense of the RX-8. The Torque Trolls have a legitimate point. They won't buy the RX-8, but we will. They "get it" about the car- it's just not for them in its current form. Let them post and let's keep the mood civil.

chenpin

This isn't even the first such discussion. We tend to get influxes of such discussions whenever new information about the RX-8 comes out. It's always the same thing over and over again. What we try to tell them is: YES! I know the RX-8 "doesn't have torque" and I ACCEPT THAT! That is why I'm buying the car. sheesh.

chenpin

The problem is not that the RX-8 is "not for them". Heck some peps on this forum have gotten other cars (evo, audi tt) and we don't bash them. Most on this forum from my experience do not bast "non - RX-8ers" The problem arises when you have people preaching from their pulpits like some of the "Torque Trolls" have done. Come on now, their posts are often laced with negativity that just begs for an answer. Also the fact that they only post on this one subject makes it maddening.

Gord96BRG

The difference between people who are concerned that the RX-8 doesn't have enough torque and Spoonie, however, is that he's already announced that he will not buy an RX-8 because of it. Why on earth is he still hanging around this forum, then, that is for fans and owners (future) of the RX-8 - just to keep reminding us that it doesn't have enough torque for him?

Excellent point - Spoonie used this very selective quote before, and still wouldn't respond to the challenge at that time - so it's less than a second slower around a road course than a Mustang with a 110 hp advantage? I'd say that's far more a knock against the Mustang than against the RX-8. He also conveniently ignores that fact that Car and Driver chose the RX-8 as the winner of the comparison test on overall merit, all performance categories considered. Obviously they are not blinkered and blinded by the lesser torque rating on the spec sheet!

With respect to S2000 comparisons - the RX-8 torque peak occurs 2000 rpm lower than the S2K - it should be significantly less peaky and less gutless at midrange revs than an S2K.

Regards,
Gordon

DonG35Miata

I guess my own take on Spoonie is he likes the RX-8 but the low-end power is a poison pill for him. If you want to see some REAL cross-vehicle bashing, check out the BMW drivers at the G35 forum on Freshalloy... now THOSE boys have some serious issues!

AsianStyle

If the torque bothers you that much then don't get the car? wtf is there to talk about? The car isn't for you if you don't want to rev it?

Spoonie

Wow, don't take it so personal. I like revving cars. I just feel that I should not have to Rev the heck out of the car just to keep up with traffic. I love revs; high revs shouldn't be a requirement for daily driving. Tone it down please. Someone asked a question and I gave them an honest unbiased answer. Something you and a lot of other folks seem to be incapable of.

If the RX8 had more torque, I would have a deposit down already.
The Mazdaspeed RX8 will probably be my next car. Peace

AsianStyle

Im sorry if I came off harsh I just dont see the reason for these comparisons because the car is made to rev thats the kind of car it is. I already agreed with you that it would be nice if it had more torque just saying if you take away the reving then its not the same car and you should be thinking of other cars not the rx-8

Spoonie

Thank you. I didn't even plan on responding to that post.

Skyline Maniac

Seems like the mention of the word "TORQUE" automaticly label you as a hater on this forum. Browsing through recent postings, we have all these die-harfd RX8 fans claiming "Please don't add supercharger or turbo" or "The RX8 is perfect and we don't need any more power or torque." Pleeeeze people, the car is not even out yet, no one has driven a production vehicle. and we are already saying it doesn't need improvement? So what's going to happen 2 years from now when a supercharged RX8 gets here? No one's going to buy it because it has 'unneccessary excess torque'?

I think many here are way too sensitive to the mention of torque since it's the only obvious weakness the RX8 has performance wise. Just accept it and move on. Give Mazda your input and hope the Renesis will gain more torque the next year or so. There is always room for improvement. Calling people torque trolls or claiming a car that's not even out as near perfection is both unrealistic and ignorant. The RX8 is an awesome car, it has its flaws, but it also has many advantages. Fixing the flaws will only make the car better.

A SPORT CAR that gets 20mpg should be able to out-accelerate automatic grocery getters without having to rev the engine and sound like a boy racer. Calling Spoonie a troll is just ignorant, because he's pointing out a valid issue with this car. To a certain extend, none of you here can claim you are 100% sure you will own a RX8 because the money is still in the bank. There are no RX8 owners on this forum at the moment, only car enthusiasts who are driving anything but the RX8. If someone makes comments about the lack of torque, just tell them "So what? It's still an awesome car."

My G35C might not have the best center console material, but I like it just fine. When people tell me "I heard the interior is cheap" I just tell them "It could be better, and they will make it better soon." I wouldn't get mad at them calling them trolls because obviously they have no idea what they are talking about. It's true the painted silver composite is not as 'high class' as walnut wood trim, but hey~ I'd rather the money I paid was spent on the engine/tranny/suspension/tires rather than a piece of wood.

The RX8 is a very promising car that no one has driven in. None here have driven the car (maybe a couple of people) and no one here owns one yet. So let's just keep an open mind and be more tolerate to other opinions. There is no point in insulting people over a valid issue in a vehicle you don't own yet.

Spoonie

Apology accepted. High revs and decent low-end power are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a High Revving car that has decent low end power. The BMW M3 and Ferrari 360 come to mind. But those cars are in a different price point. I guess Mazda has done the best it can do at the RX-8's price point. A more powerful version will probably cost much, much more $$.

rotarynews.com

Ok, I'm going to steer this thread back on track.... all replys below this one better be about what the acceleration compares to. Find another thread to talk about torque.

So, IMHO, the RX-8's acceleration is most like a tuned 2nd gen Non-turbo RX-7. So, if you can find one with headers, a streetport, and other performance goodies, it will give you a taste of the RX-8.

In terms of suspension, I would say it is BMWesq, but a little more road feel (ie, less luxo ride)