That's a really cool calculator. With 300HP and 3000 Curb weight you get just under 4.8seconds

 

Maybe he was going downhill?

 

airplane with droped hook and good pilot 3.7 0-60 w/minor windshield damage!

 

I've been hearing this rumor for quite some time.... so far, no evidence of it.

 

Yeah sorry I was killing an hour at Borders so I flipped through all the magazines that I don't subscribe too. I think it was the automobile magazine. Probably is just stirring hope but damn will Mazda just listen to its enthusiast base. I would love a 3 rotor n/a or a larger displacement for the rx8. 1.6L or even 2.0L(3 rotor) is still a small motor and would keep the weight down. I guess emissions would be a large concern in this day of age and also fuel efficiency.

Also I was curious if Mazda changed the chamber width and rotation height on the rx8 from the rx7? Has Mazda ever manipulated these dimensions to change output? I was just curious because I like the larger bore and short stroke of piston engines. They usually lack torque but deliver higher red lines and more power up top (Honda, Ferrari, ect) I realize they add in an element of variable valve timing though too.

 

Yes. I am your divine god. Kneel before me.

And show us proof of your acceleration. If true, you have the fastest N/A Renesis-powered RX-8 in the world (0-100 kmph being approximately 0-62 mph).

 

i knew you meant km/h.

 

i see thisclaim has raised alot of anger.... my intention was to share not to brag, share that these mods really worked. like sharing a secret recipe.

however...u want proof, ill mount a webcam on my seering column focusing on the speedometer and do a dash. then post it up..u guys can time it.

it will be authentic, dont say i skipped frames.

 

Wasn't this discussed on the board a few times that the reason for a 1.3 was because it was like the "rotary displacement magic number?" I seem to recall RotaryGod and MM chiming into that discussion.

Thinking on that, perhaps mazda is moving along with their research (duh), but as everyone else says, it's doubtable, and until it happens, I'm not going to go along with the hype.

 

0-100 km in 4.8, at the most 200-205 hp, current curb weight = no chance

You're defying physics, and damnit I know physics.

 

yeah authentic like my gif signature showing 21.0 AC temperature. whoops!

 

I think speculation is useless on the next gen rotary until the Japanese autoshow in October.

 

Let's hope the Kabura has a turbo 4 so it will make real power & torque!

Don't get me wrong...I love rotaries, but only FI. Otherwise, they are gutless.

Why Mazda took such a big step back, performance wise, from the FD is a mystery to me.

 

I think that may be a case of RX-8s outside the U.S. (not sure which countries) get climate control? We Americans get: on/off. Stupid rest of the world and their gadgetry.

 

WHEELS Mag here reported a 16B was rumored to be in development over 2 years ago..unless they make a 3 rotor, but it is all a little boring.

 

Because the FD had an overly complicated turbo system, with 72 vacuum lines, and major problems caused by a lack of proper cooling for that turbo system.

If mazda had brought the 8 out with a turbo system like the FD, sure the enthusiasts would've bought it, but the 8 wasn't targeted at just the enthusiasts. It was targeted at everyday people who want a reliable daily drive car.

It wasn't a step back from the FD. It's a different car. It's not an RX-7 and it was never intended to be one.

 

A turbo rotary would easily make "real power and torque".

What do you think a 4 clyinder engine is without a turbo? They're just as gutless. Torque is a function of displacement. Little displacement, little torque unless of course there's some help from FI.

They didn't build a 4th gen RX-7 therefore there wasn't a step back in performance from anything. The RX-8 is a new car from the ground up with different performance attributes in mind. It was never intended to be the pure sports car that the last RX-7 was. The RX-8 is a 4 door sports car intended for the middle aged person who has a family and may need some part time double duty. You don't get that with a true no holds barred sports car. Mystery revealed.

 

Completely true at one point in the rx-8s development was was going to cost over $45,000 each until someone said we need a car that anyone can afford not another niche car. It would have been nice to have a technological innovation in a car that most of us couldnt really afford, such as mesh seats and led headlights

 

I don't know about physics but mine is a JDM achieving 250bhp.

 

Say, wasn't the 10A listed as 1.1L? Translate that into a 3 rotor and you get ~1.65L of discplacment. Now THAT would be cool. It would still be revvy as hell with the smaller rotors and have the higher topend of a larger discplacment motor

 

I don't believe there will be a 1.6L but if there was I completely believe it could have 300hp NA. A little bit of displacement goes a long way with rotaries. Just look at the power difference between a old 20b and an old 13b. Huge difference.
________
Buy Cannabis Seeds

 

The 12A engine displacement was around 1150 cc's. It was a more developed and more modern engine that would be better for your fantasy. Sorry, but a 3 rotor isn't going to happen do to the expence of the extra rotor. And how is the renesis design going to work on the center rotor. It would require the exhaust to exit through 2 siamese exhaust ports which are too small to do the job. A new casting would need to be designed and made.

 

Didn't Mazda hint that the next gen motor was going to be a new from the bottom up design? The ceter housing would certainly qualify I'll just keep dreaming untill the next Auto show in Oct...

 

I won't believe any "rumors/concepts" until i see them on the showroom floor.

 

we are talking "rear wheel horsepower". Our U.S. models have 232 hp but on a dino only about 185-200 "rear wheel horspower". Your 250 hp model would not have more than 210-220 at the wheels. Only a few extra horses are achieved through intake and exhaust mods. Not nearly enough to get you to 62 mph in 4.8 seconds.