Rotary Soul

people keep bringing up the fact that the rx-8 doesn't have low-end torque, doesn't have enough horses, etc. etc, but i don't think there is reason for that to matter so much (i mean it matters, but not to that extent). Half the reason for buying a japanese car is because they have so much aftermarket support. i know it's more money. that is a problem. but things like low-end torque can be solved with not too much money invested. there are things that cannot be modified past the car's potentials, but the rx8 has potential for much more torque. I know that this adds to the cost of the car and the costing too much is a legitimate gripe, but i just wanted to say that "doesn't have low end torque" can be fixed a lot easier than "doesn't have enough cornering ability".

Hercules

I think most of the people that start those threads, or make that inference, have no real interest in the car and have already been sold on <insert competing car here>.

That said... it's not everybody.. People have concerns but it's been mentioned time and time again, that if you're lookin to drag race... this isn't the car for you.

Aesculapius

I think a lot of this torque conversation is very overstated. Yeah, the major reviewers are talking about torque deficiency....but what are they comparing it too? Other sport type cars?

I can guarantee you that the RX-8 has a LOT more torque than my 95 Honda Accord.

Just because the RX-8 doesn't have as much torque as a boxter doesn't mean that I won't wet myself the first time I drive it! :D

rael

Agree but Mazda is targetting specific car owners including those in sports/ performance cars ie Audi TT. I think that they are hoping that the additional seats, styling and price will overcome the lower torque problem but I see the 'push' in the back as a major element of any traditional sports car. The car has performance (we have seen all the figures) but this will require high revs which is not how everyone wants to drive.

Its going to be a different drive, not necessarily worse.

rael

miztic

If it were a piston engine I can see how the lack of low end torque can be a problem, revving a piston engine to redline can be very unsetteling.

AbusiveWombat

The problem with an aftermarket turbo or supercharger is that it instantly voids all waranies. Now I don't know about you, but I don't have the money to replace an engine if it blows due to an inferior aftermarket FI system.

Mistic - Have you ever rev'ed a VTEC engine? I loved revving my Prelude to 7500. I can only imagine that the S2000 is even more fun.

We all know that torque and horsepower are directly related.
HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

That the more torque you have the more horsepower you have at any given RPM. So if you double the torque you would have the same power at half the RPM. Your acceleration is related to the horsepower divided by weight of the car (F=ma => a=F/m).

The reason I want more torque is because it would be nice to have more pull lower in the RPMs. Now on the track it's lots of fun to keep the RPMs above 6000 but during everyday driving that's a little obnoxious. I realize that you want acceleration, you down shift but there were plenty of times in my Prelude that I would have loved to have 200 ft-lbs rather than the 156 ft-lbs. I'm not saying that torque is going to kill sales....hell look at the S2000 but it's the only complaint....with that solved we would have a near perfect car (nothing is perfect, there would probably be something else we would all knit pick over).

Rotary Soul

I understand that concern, but with a reliable product from a reliable company (installed properly as well), there should be no problems with minimal effect on reliability. With some very minor tuning and some small changes to gear ratios, low end torque should be easily increased with the rx-8

CraziFuzzy

You have to look at the point of view of the reviewers. If a reviewer says nothing bad about a car, he starts to lose some credibility, and the most 'not-good' point of the car, is that it takes a slightly different driving style to get the performance out of the engine. I don't necessarily consider this a totally bad point, but I feel that it is something that a responsible review should definately point out, since it is something that the majority of drivers will really be concerned about, and something they would notice on their first drive. I have noticed that every review has qualified the statement right after by adding that if you DO keep the rev's high, "You'll be playing boy racer with the best of them" (C&D TV)

MikeW

1995 Honda Accord
DX/LX I4 139 ft-lbs
EX I4 147 ft-lbs
EX V6 165 ft-lbs


People are looking at the renesis all wrong, it is not a gutless HO engine, it is a SHO small (small) engine

unemployedpimp

if you guys really love the rx-8 than stop worrying about whats wrong wit it! someone in this forum said that u can get more tourque by simply adding a chip. thats not that hard to do!

AbusiveWombat

A chip on an NA engine will only add like 1-5 lb-ft of torque. It definately won't add 50 lb-ft which is what I think it needs. Now the supercharged RENESIS from the other thread...that sounds almost unfair to the competition. 320hp ... 277 ft-lbs

Hercules

The RX-8 is a compromise car. It's going to be decent at everything with an emphasis on the handling.

It doesn't NEED any more power than it's got... It'd be nice, sure. But to offer the car for the price they are, the power is great.

I think what most people have been hoping for is an RX-7, and since the RX-8 has been released first the majority of people are already jumping onto the bandwagon that it needs more torque. It's not meant for that.

My Millenia has 160 lb/ft of torque... and it's fine to put around in for everyday use. The idea that you won't be able to merge into traffic is ludicrus. The torque is okay for the car that Mazda wants it to be.

Just my $.02...

Skyline Maniac

My question is this:

Are you guys actually looking for a semi-practical sporty 4 seater or are you guys interested in the car for its performance? I think it'll be safe to say that MANY RX-8 fans are hardcore rotary enthusiasts. This seems to me, where the arguments are coming from. True performance enthusiasts are not going to be satisfied with a 'downgraded' rotary with tiny torque figure despite being a clean NA engine.

If you buy the car because you need the 4 seats, then when the RX7 comes out, you won't have too much regret. On the other hand, if you are looking for a successor to the RX-7, then this car is NOT it. We all know the NA Renesis lacks torque, and nobody knows this fact better than Mazda. That's why the torque and even power will be significantly improved on the REAL THING - RX7. So unless you are willing to sacrifice significant performance numbers for those 2 rear seats and suicide doors. IMHO, NA rotary is a compromise, so is the rear seats in a car like this. I would suggest to at least wait for some facts and figures of the RX-7 surface before picking up your 8.

Lensman

This subject just won't go away will it...
Well I'm no expert on the subject of torque vs horsepower but think of this,

the Lotus Elise has these stats:
Maximum power: 118bhp (88kW) at 5500rpm.
Maximum torque: 122lb ft (165Nm) at 3000rpm.
& has an Unladen weight of 1663lb (755kg).
0-62 = 5.9 secs

the Porsche Boxter (not the S):
228 bhp.
192lb ft (260Nm) torque
0-62 = 6.4 secs

The Elise has far less torque and power than the RX-8 but is lighter and considered to be very fast. It doesn't need the torque to get the numbers though.

The Boxter is considered to be a rapid(ish) car and easy to drive in town. It has a similar weight to the RX-8, similar torque and 19 bhp less power.

Finally: check out any owner reviews for the Honda S2000. They LOVE it despite it's mad revving nature and less torque than the RX-8.

This is about driving enjoyment folks and the Mazda will give you that. Don't get hung up on the desire for raw power. The RX-8 has more power (by far) than any standard commuter car and even they can get away from you if you take your mind out of the loop. If you want to take out another car in under 6.5 to 7 seconds in the RX-8 then it'll require moving your wrist to shift gears but can you easily do it. If you want to get a 5.9 second launch then it IS possible just tricky but how many times will you need to do that - is it just your ego complaining that you can't EASILY do it (I know mine was until I thought this through)?

Finally, check out a Formula-1 car. Very high revving (double the RX-8), requires constant gear shifting and attention to the power band, not that much torque considering the bhp and yet amazing racing machines.

Don't Panic!


As an after thought: it probably doesn't help the RX-8 (particularly in this forum) that Mazda have promoted it as a hot sports car (laguna Seca runs, excellent 'claimed' performance etc). A lot of expectations were raised that might be unrealistic and as is happening people start to complain. If Mazda had marketed it realistically from day 1 then it would be considered to be a great car and simply a very fast and interesting 4-seater rather than a slightly below par uber sports vehicle.

Finally: 164lb ft torque is not a 'tiny' figure as claimed above. It is a lot of torque for most cars just lower than average for a fast sports car. It's all perspective.

ZoomZoom

Lensman, I'm with you on this however some people will never get it!

Donny Boy

All this torque talk is getting out of hand. Did anyone see the article in Road and Track about the new Acura, with about the same torque as the RX-8, yet more weight and less horsepower. They had the audacity to compare this car with a BMW, did not mention the lack of torque and generally were favorable towards it. Is Mazda held to higher standards??
C'mon . . . give me a break. . . .actually, just give me my RX-8.

Hercules

Most people that waft over from the FreshAlloy forums are torque junkies... and none will ever truly love a high revving engine.

And that's fine. We aren't on your site bashing your cars. So don't come to our site telling us we're making the wrong decisions. We have 30 grand we are willing to pay and if you're on this forum it's a sign good enough that you're doing your homework.

Get off the torque issue. Seriously, it's getting old. The G35 Coupe isn't as 'fun to drive' for us, neither is the 350Z regardless of 4 doors and a back seat. The RX-7 will bring with it handling to match the RX-8 and more power, probably a sportier look.

So those of you saying "wait for the RX-7" well... the only thing you'll wait for in that car is the power. Handling will be very close (but better on the RX-7), and the main difference will be the power. I'm happy with the straight line performance of the RX-8, and my main joy will be carving corners and having the added practicality of rear seats.

The G35/Z drivers from FreshAlloy by in large love to 'stoplight' race (hell there was even a FULL THREAD about "RX-8 vs G35 Coupe from a Stoplight .. Who'd win?!?")... if you're not one of those people that's fine and I mean no disrespect to you.

But if you're trying to convince us that the RX-8 doesn't have enough torque you seriously need to go back to the forums that agree with you -- you won't find it here.

m477

On the other hand, if you are looking for the successor to the R32-R34, the G35 Coupe is NOT it. We all know the VQ lacks the torque and power of the RB26DETT, and nobody knows this fact better than Nissan. That's why torque and power will be significantly improved on the REAL THING -- R35 GT-R. So unless you are willing to sacrifice significang performance numbers for those 2 turbos less than a twin turbo. IMHO, NA V-6 is a compromise. I would suggest to at least wait for some facts and figures of the GT-R before picking up your G35c. (Because everyone knows the best thing to base your car purchase on is some numbers printed in a magazine, not stupid things like overall feel and enjoyment... silly people)


But seriously, you're so obsessed about sacrificing "numbers"? Do you even enjoy driving, or is it that you just bought your car so you could try to impress your co-workers by reciting some magazine trivia about it at the water cooler? When I'm getting the most enjoyment out of my car, that is driving on some curvy, hilly back roads, I really could care less about what the published 0-60 time or whatever other number is.

But since you're so concerned with numbers here's one for you -- the G35C weighs in at a massive 3400lbs, which is 100lbs more than a 4WD Jeep Cherokee SUV.

Skyline Maniac

Sheesh, don't get all defensive. If you are looking for a practical 4 seater that's fun to drive, then the 8 is a good choice. (Plenty fast for a practical sporty car anyways) I guess you can think of it as a RWD Maza6 with even better performance and handling. I just thought most people expect rotary engine cars to perform better, like the RX7. Torque may be used for drag racing purposes (which I am not interested in), but it's important for everyday driving. Imagine carrying 4 people in the car (what the RX8 is designed to do) or going up a hill. Torque makes things easier without having to rev the engine and change gears all the time. The S2000 has the same problem, but everyone who buys a S2000 realizes it's a true sport car with many compromises.

Don't speak as if torque is completely unnescessary for the RX8, because most people expected more torque from the Renesis before the info was released. Typical Mazda claims, 'we only said the Renesis is as powerfulas the RX7 turbo, we never said torque." FD came out 10 years ago with more power, and more torque than the new Renesis, and very similar gas milage. The only thing that changed is the emission standards. So it took Mazda 10 years of R&D to make a clean rotary engine? Of course not~ a turbo or supercharged Renesis is probably being completed as we speak. FI should resolve the low torque problem with the Renesis. If you guys INSIST the Renesis has enough power and torque for your taste, then I suppose Mazda should just drop the same 250/160 Renesis in the RX7?

All I was saying was: Wait for some info of RX7 to come out first, then decide which car you really want. (RX7 or RX8, we are NOT talking about the G35C, 350Z, Boxter, S2000 or BMW here) It's not a good idea to plunge down $$$ for a brand RX8 without knowing anything regarding the next 7. Think about it, what if the turbo Renesis RX7 debuts at Tokyo Motor Show this October with 350hp, 300lb.ft torque, 2800lbs and sells for the around the same price as the RX8? I didn't expected to be attacked by Hercules for this. I mean, aren't you guys least bit curious for what the next 7 is going to be like?

Hercules: I never said the 350Z or G35C or whatever else is better for than the RX8. I am not here to brag about my car or bag on the RX8. I suggested that rotary fans to wait for some news on the 7 before go ahead and purchase the 8. I know rotary fans have been waiting A LONG TIME for the return its return. However, I don't think the Renesis is the true form of the next gen rotary, and a few month wait might be worthwhile for those hardcore fans. (which you disagree full heartedly for no apparent reason) If you like fun to drive cars, that's fine. If you don't care about torque, that's fine. However, don't make it sounds like torque is 'not needed' and the RX7 is 'not going to be worth the wait' because frankly, you don't know squat about the 7 either. I never intended to promote my car here. (do a search) Perhaps it was a mistake to include my car in the signiture, which seem to automaticly labeled me as a troll in your eyes. Now I am asked to leave the forum because I suggested RX8 fans to wait for some news of the RX7 before purchasing?

btw: since we are not going to talk about power and all. Hercules, I humbly ask your opinion on the 'fun to drive' factor on the RX8 vs whatever competitor car you have tested? So how does the RX8 handle?

Skyline Maniac

I would have gotten a G35 sedan if the rear end looked better, so no~ GT-R performance is not what I was looking for. Then again, I don't remember Infiniti claiming the G35C as a true sport car. I expected a entry level luxury 2+2 GT, so all those fancy performance numbers are just gravy to me. (ex. Brembo is nice, but the important thing is that they 'look nice') On the other hand, when I get a sport car , I'd expect not to get beaten by my co-worker's Altima in a straight line (which seems be 90 % of the roads around here) or otherwise.

And no~ performance is not only about numbers. 240hp, 250hp, 300hp are all 'sufficient' for fun and everyday driving. It's when you see a low number it makes you worry when you head towards the hills with 3 passengers in the car.

Let me just put it this way: If both the RX8 and next gen RX7 become available at the same time, which one would you pick? If you are not sure of the answer, then do yourself a favor and wait for some info to come out regarding the 7.

m477

So Mazda buyers should wait in case something with better performace comes out, even if the RX-8 is exactly what they're looking for. But Nissan buyers shouldn't. Whatever....

And you say you're not here to bash the RX-8, but that's exactly what you do. You repeatedly call anything other than a heavy, large displacement car (like the g35, coincidentally) a "problem". Having a sports car that's meant to have the engine revved up or a manual that's meant to be shifted is a "problem". Right. To each is own, you've made it very clear (repeatedly) that you only can tolerate one type of engine/car, but you may be suprised to find out that different people actually like different things. The only "problem" I see here is closed-mindedness...

Skyline Maniac

If RX8 is exactly what you are looking for, then good for you. If you are looking for a light weight 4 door sport car that is fun to drive, then congratulations. I made it clear that IF you are a hardcore rotary nut, then wait for some info on the RX7 and its engine. If you didn't buy the car for its rotary engine, then my statement obviously doesn't apply to you. If you can't be open to a more sporty, better handling authentic successor to the RX series, then I am not sure I would be the close-minded one here. If you already made up your mind that practicality is more important than all out performance or 'fun to drive' factors, then I suppose there is no need to know about the RX7.

Lensman

The RX-7 is two years away at best. By that time there will be a supercharger kit for the RX-8 or you could trade the RX-8 in on an RX-7. I see the argument but if performance is the issue then surely the real (current) choice is more RX-8/350Z than RX-8/RX-7.

Look people: this argument is going to trundle on for at least five or six more months until somebody actually OWNS an RX-8 and can (objectively) report back on it. We lack the data required to make a final conclusion...

Finally, don't discount the smoothness of the Renesis. At 9000rpm it will feel and sound like a piston engine at 4000rpm so you won't appear to be thrashing the car.

DTECH-RX

Not to mention that for a lot, if not most people considering the RX-8, the RX-7 is NOT an option due to having only two seats, period. That alone disqualifies considering an RX-7 regardless of if it has triple sequential turbos 400+hp, AWD, a track suspension, and a seven speed manual transmission....

I would hope I wouldn't have to say this, but yes I'm being sarcastic. :D Besides, if no one buys the RX-8 now, how the hell would Mazda justify or finance the development of further improvements, including the RX-7???

Things that make you go....hmmmm :p

m477

Guess what, some people WANT a 4-seater, NA rotary car. That is why they are buying RX-8s. Why is that so hard to understand?

If you are so obsessed with the RX-7 then go to an RX-7 site. Make sense?

What if one of us went to some Infiniti site and told people that they're stupid for buying the car they wanted, and they should buy an M3 instead because it's better in every way? Well, personally I wouldn't do that, because going on to someone else's site and telling them what they want is completely asinine.