Autocar (U.K.) RX-8 Road Test
09-28-2003, 09:31 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autocar (U.K.) RX-8 Road Test
Story: September 16 issue Autocar magazine
Autocar test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph
Euro RX-8 __ 15.3s @ 93mph ____ 18.1 s
Road&Track test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph __ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Acura RSX
Type-S ____15.2s @ 92.7mph ___ 18.0 s ___ 200 hp ___2750 lb ___0.073
U.S. and European production RX-8s’ acceleration is similar to a RSX Type-S.
Both RX-8 and RSX have high-rev NA engine and manual transmission.
Their power-to-weight ratios must be very close.
0.073 x 3000 = 219 hp (estimated power of production RX-8)
Autocar test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph
Euro RX-8 __ 15.3s @ 93mph ____ 18.1 s
Road&Track test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph __ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Acura RSX
Type-S ____15.2s @ 92.7mph ___ 18.0 s ___ 200 hp ___2750 lb ___0.073
U.S. and European production RX-8s’ acceleration is similar to a RSX Type-S.
Both RX-8 and RSX have high-rev NA engine and manual transmission.
Their power-to-weight ratios must be very close.
0.073 x 3000 = 219 hp (estimated power of production RX-8)
09-28-2003, 10:14 PM
#2
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHO GIVES A FLYING F#@%
Look, this has been done to death. Are you so mentally challenged that you can only read 1/4 mile times from an entire road test.
REALLY!!!
Did they have anything else to say about the car (good or bad), or did they dedicate half a dozen pages to it's quarter mile time.
So, I'd really like to know, how many times have you been taken by aliens? Does Elvis walk your street? Is Mazda in league with the devil?
C'mon, how dare you post...
"Autocar (U.K.) RX-8 Road Test"
... then just dribble on about 1/4 miles times.
Oh and isn't it just spooky that if you spell Mazda backwards, you only have to change the first 3 letters to spell "ISLAM"?!?!?
Happy now that I took the bait?
Look, this has been done to death. Are you so mentally challenged that you can only read 1/4 mile times from an entire road test.
REALLY!!!
Did they have anything else to say about the car (good or bad), or did they dedicate half a dozen pages to it's quarter mile time.
So, I'd really like to know, how many times have you been taken by aliens? Does Elvis walk your street? Is Mazda in league with the devil?
C'mon, how dare you post...
"Autocar (U.K.) RX-8 Road Test"
... then just dribble on about 1/4 miles times.
Oh and isn't it just spooky that if you spell Mazda backwards, you only have to change the first 3 letters to spell "ISLAM"?!?!?
Happy now that I took the bait?
09-29-2003, 12:14 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
_____________ Top Speed
Euro RX-8 _____ 142 mph (Autocar data)
Acura RSX
Type-S FP _____ 142 mph (Car&Driver data)
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
Euro RX-8 _____ 142 mph (Autocar data)
Acura RSX
Type-S FP _____ 142 mph (Car&Driver data)
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
09-29-2003, 12:29 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: I only see trees
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road&Track test data
________________ 0-60mph __ 0 - 1/4 mile ___ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Infiniti
G35 Sport Coupe __ 6.1 s ___ 14.6s @ 96mph __ 280 hp __ 3435 lb __ 0.082
Car&Driver test data
Porsche
Boxster ___________6.0 s ___ 14.6s @ 98mph __ 228 hp __ 3024 lb __ 0.075
Both cars have NA engines, RWD and manual transmission.
Their power-to-weight ratios must be very close.
0.075 x 3435 = 258 hp (estimated power of production G35C is 22 short of what Infinity claims)
The G35 probably has even less than 258 because the trap mph is lower.
SC
________________ 0-60mph __ 0 - 1/4 mile ___ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Infiniti
G35 Sport Coupe __ 6.1 s ___ 14.6s @ 96mph __ 280 hp __ 3435 lb __ 0.082
Car&Driver test data
Porsche
Boxster ___________6.0 s ___ 14.6s @ 98mph __ 228 hp __ 3024 lb __ 0.075
Both cars have NA engines, RWD and manual transmission.
Their power-to-weight ratios must be very close.
0.075 x 3435 = 258 hp (estimated power of production G35C is 22 short of what Infinity claims)
The G35 probably has even less than 258 because the trap mph is lower.
SC
09-29-2003, 01:14 AM
#6
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Stuporcharger (estimated power of production G35C is 22 short of what Infinity claims)
The G35 probably has even less than 258 because the trap mph is lower.
SC
The G35 probably has even less than 258 because the trap mph is lower.
SC
Supercharger is a long-time member and contributor to this forum, and is someone i hold in high esteem as a valued contributor and pot-stirrer.
in short: get lost.
09-29-2003, 10:50 AM
#7
Registered
Re: Autocar (U.K.) RX-8 Road Test
Originally posted by Supercharger
Story: September 16 issue Autocar magazine
Autocar test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph
Euro RX-8 __ 15.3s @ 93mph ____ 18.1 s
Road&Track test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph __ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Acura RSX
Type-S ____15.2s @ 92.7mph ___ 18.0 s ___ 200 hp ___2750 lb ___0.073
U.S. and European production RX-8s’ acceleration is similar to a RSX Type-S.
Story: September 16 issue Autocar magazine
Autocar test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph
Euro RX-8 __ 15.3s @ 93mph ____ 18.1 s
Road&Track test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph __ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Acura RSX
Type-S ____15.2s @ 92.7mph ___ 18.0 s ___ 200 hp ___2750 lb ___0.073
U.S. and European production RX-8s’ acceleration is similar to a RSX Type-S.
If you wish to quote Acura RSX Type S performance numbers generated by Road and Track and compare to RX-8 numbers, then why not quote the appropriate Road and Track numbers?
Road&Track test data
____________ 0 – 1/4 mile ____ 0-100mph __ Power ___ Weight ___ P/W
Mazda RX-8 ____14.5s @ 95.6mph ___ 15.9 s ___ 238 hp ___3000 lb
Gee, the Acura RXS Type S (according to Road and Track itself is significantly slower than the RX-8. Your point was? (irrelevant).
Spewing magazine test data with no proper context is pretty useless. Sorry, Keech, I've gotta disagree with you about the value of Supercharger's contributions.
Regards,
Gordon
09-30-2003, 12:23 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not like he posted any wrong facts...in a way i understand how the 8 guys have to defend their car since it seems to have been the target of a lot of negative remarks for the last month or so...but i don't think such "instant flame" is necessary since he didn't say anything bad about the 8. All he posted were facts from a magazine. I don't think people should get flamed for that.
09-30-2003, 12:39 AM
#10
Registered
Overly defensive? Perhaps.
No, he posted facts from two different magazines, to show the RX-8 poorly in a comparison. If he'd only shown facts from the one magazine (R&T) to compare the same two cars, then the RX-8 looks much better. I could probably find road test times from Consumer Reports or MSN Auto which put the Acura 1/4 mi time at 16.x seconds and compare it to the R&T RX-8 times to really make the Acura look bad, but that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? (my point exactly). If the comparison isn't fair, what's the point of the comparison?
Regards,
Gordon
Originally posted by zthang
All he posted were facts from a magazine.
All he posted were facts from a magazine.
Regards,
Gordon
09-30-2003, 01:05 AM
#11
[rapidus octus]
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,028
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Gord96BRG
Overly defensive? Perhaps.
No, he posted facts from two different magazines, to show the RX-8 poorly in a comparison. If he'd only shown facts from the one magazine (R&T) to compare the same two cars, then the RX-8 looks much better. I could probably find road test times from Consumer Reports or MSN Auto which put the Acura 1/4 mi time at 16.x seconds and compare it to the R&T RX-8 times to really make the Acura look bad, but that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? (my point exactly). If the comparison isn't fair, what's the point of the comparison?
Regards,
Gordon
Overly defensive? Perhaps.
No, he posted facts from two different magazines, to show the RX-8 poorly in a comparison. If he'd only shown facts from the one magazine (R&T) to compare the same two cars, then the RX-8 looks much better. I could probably find road test times from Consumer Reports or MSN Auto which put the Acura 1/4 mi time at 16.x seconds and compare it to the R&T RX-8 times to really make the Acura look bad, but that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? (my point exactly). If the comparison isn't fair, what's the point of the comparison?
Regards,
Gordon
If people must contiune dribbling on about 1/4 mile performance - why not title the thread "Autocar review 1/4 times" - not suck people in to reading a thread that is just another barb based on unrelated test data.
Maybe one of the moderators could do EVERYONE a favour and open a new forum for 1/4 mile times and horsepower comparisons... then the people that want to read it will go there.
I'm not the only person that has had enough of the endless performance bashing the 8 is getting here and I'm also not the only person that did not purchase the car for outright straight line performance.
09-30-2003, 09:16 AM
#13
I[ve barely seen Supercharger make any input into his post other than stating times.
At one point he was comparing some SUV to an enzo (in gear times) or something, totaly showing numbers dont mean anything.
Of all the contributors to this forum Supercharger is the only one I look for and I KNOW the post is going to be awfull pseudo factual crap.
Wish we had an /ignore option on here.
Supercharger - start posting something of yourself , not just facts and figures. Hell, just link to the article and say something like you dont like the colours, or you drove one and it was great , something please...
At one point he was comparing some SUV to an enzo (in gear times) or something, totaly showing numbers dont mean anything.
Of all the contributors to this forum Supercharger is the only one I look for and I KNOW the post is going to be awfull pseudo factual crap.
Wish we had an /ignore option on here.
Supercharger - start posting something of yourself , not just facts and figures. Hell, just link to the article and say something like you dont like the colours, or you drove one and it was great , something please...
09-30-2003, 02:12 PM
#15
Autocar is well known for hating the RX-8 as the British members of the forum will attest to, I doubt they tried. But I agree with all points made by Gordon. I read somewhere if you take the same car and ran it at one place with the temp at 75 degrees F and then at another at 60 degrees F and assuming all other environmental conditions are the same their can be as much as .4 difference in quatermile times, not that is that important.
Last edited by PoLaK; 09-30-2003 at 09:38 PM.
10-01-2003, 12:06 AM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comparison between RX-8 and RSX Type-S is valid due to their peaky engines.
RSX Type-S output: 200 hp @ 7400 rpm / 142 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm
A stock RSX Type-S is capable of 14.8s @ 95mph.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
RSX Type-S output: 200 hp @ 7400 rpm / 142 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm
A stock RSX Type-S is capable of 14.8s @ 95mph.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
10-01-2003, 04:17 AM
#18
Originally posted by Supercharger
The comparison between RX-8 and RSX Type-S is valid due to their peaky engines.
RSX Type-S output: 200 hp @ 7400 rpm / 142 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm
A stock RSX Type-S is capable of 14.8s @ 95mph.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
The comparison between RX-8 and RSX Type-S is valid due to their peaky engines.
RSX Type-S output: 200 hp @ 7400 rpm / 142 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm
A stock RSX Type-S is capable of 14.8s @ 95mph.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
Why would i want to compare against a car I cant buy?
That'd be just as usefull as all the G35 type comparisons for us.
10-01-2003, 07:51 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Herts - UK
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think the Autocar performance figures ARE interesting.
Firstly, they are the only people, as far as I know, who have actually done performance testing on the Euro spec RX-8, rather than just driven it, commented that it feels quite fast and then quoted Mazda's figures.
Secondly, they have obviously done a pretty thorough job, measuring lots of in-gear times and getting a top speed reading, so I think their figures ought to be taken seriously. 0-60's can be a bit subjective, depending on how hard you launch the car bit this is much less true with 0-100.
I know Autocar don't like the car, but that doesn't stop them from taking acurate measurements. In a recent test they got some great figures for an Alfa 147GTA, but clearly weren't that keen on it overall.
The problem with the RSX comparison is that that car is front wheel drive - the RWD RX-8 should have an advantage in standing start acceleration times which probably compensates for it's heavier weight. And for top speed, it is really more about aerodynamic drag (which is probably similar for the two cars) rather than weight.
So, the fact the standing start accelaration and top speed are very close actually indicates that the power figures are probably close too. You can do similar comparisons with, for example, Civic Type-R's and BMW 325 compacts using the hp, performance and weight figures at the back of Autocar. When you do this you very quickly realise that the car Autocar tested appears to be making around 200 hp (maybe 210 max).
Now I'm not saying that the Euro RX-8 has 200 hp based on this one set of performance figures. But I am saying that the discrepancy between this and the 228 hp in the specification is so great that it casts doubt on Mazdas horsepower figures. It is also very reminiscent of the issues people have seen dynoing US cars and indicates that these problems may not be confined to the US.
Of course, over the next few months we may get a whole slew of European tests confirming Mazda's published figures and we can then dismiss the Autocar figures as a freak result. But in the meantime we have to go with the data we have.
Firstly, they are the only people, as far as I know, who have actually done performance testing on the Euro spec RX-8, rather than just driven it, commented that it feels quite fast and then quoted Mazda's figures.
Secondly, they have obviously done a pretty thorough job, measuring lots of in-gear times and getting a top speed reading, so I think their figures ought to be taken seriously. 0-60's can be a bit subjective, depending on how hard you launch the car bit this is much less true with 0-100.
I know Autocar don't like the car, but that doesn't stop them from taking acurate measurements. In a recent test they got some great figures for an Alfa 147GTA, but clearly weren't that keen on it overall.
The problem with the RSX comparison is that that car is front wheel drive - the RWD RX-8 should have an advantage in standing start acceleration times which probably compensates for it's heavier weight. And for top speed, it is really more about aerodynamic drag (which is probably similar for the two cars) rather than weight.
So, the fact the standing start accelaration and top speed are very close actually indicates that the power figures are probably close too. You can do similar comparisons with, for example, Civic Type-R's and BMW 325 compacts using the hp, performance and weight figures at the back of Autocar. When you do this you very quickly realise that the car Autocar tested appears to be making around 200 hp (maybe 210 max).
Now I'm not saying that the Euro RX-8 has 200 hp based on this one set of performance figures. But I am saying that the discrepancy between this and the 228 hp in the specification is so great that it casts doubt on Mazdas horsepower figures. It is also very reminiscent of the issues people have seen dynoing US cars and indicates that these problems may not be confined to the US.
Of course, over the next few months we may get a whole slew of European tests confirming Mazda's published figures and we can then dismiss the Autocar figures as a freak result. But in the meantime we have to go with the data we have.
10-02-2003, 12:06 AM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autocar test data
____________ 0-100mph __ Top Speed __ Power ___ Weight
Honda Civic
Type-R ________16.2 s ____ 146 mph ___ 197 hp ___1204 kg
Mazda RX-8 ____18.1 s ____ 142 mph ___ 228 hp ___1300 kg
Both cars have high-rev NA engine and manual transmission.
The Civic Type-R is quicker than the RX-8 despite having a lower power-to-weight ratio.
Conclusion:
The European RX-8 produces less than 228 hp.
____________ 0-100mph __ Top Speed __ Power ___ Weight
Honda Civic
Type-R ________16.2 s ____ 146 mph ___ 197 hp ___1204 kg
Mazda RX-8 ____18.1 s ____ 142 mph ___ 228 hp ___1300 kg
Both cars have high-rev NA engine and manual transmission.
The Civic Type-R is quicker than the RX-8 despite having a lower power-to-weight ratio.
Conclusion:
The European RX-8 produces less than 228 hp.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
thewatcher101
Series I Trouble Shooting
0
07-27-2015 09:44 PM
