CAR Magazine RX-8 review
 

For those that don't know, CAR Magazine is a British magazine that is probably the second best car mag in the world (EVO is the best). It is FAR better than any crap such as MT, C&D, R&T.

Anyways, they run an RX-8 on the test track in Japan, and overall were very impressed with the car.

First off, they said the packaging was brilliant, a cozy feeling, yet lots of room for passengers, and very easy to get in and out of, including the back seat.

The rotary sits 40mm lower and 60mm further back in the chassis than the RX-7's mill. It's also 30% lighter. The transmission ends at the driver's thigh and a carbon fiber driveshaft takes power from there to the rear diff. The gas tank is under the rear seat, and a spare tire is an option. The car runs on Bridgestone RE040 runflats. What this is all doing is putting all the heavy objects within the wheelbase. This provides a low polar moment of inertia, and aids in razor sharp responses. It's basically a midengine car, and very similar in layout to an S2000.

The great thing is the weight: 1315kg, or just under 2900lb. This is awesome for such a car, Mazda should be congratulated for not making it a 3300lb pig like the 350Z. The RX-8 is only about 100lb heavier than an S2000, with room for 4. SWEET!!!

They say the engine is a jewel (US/Japan versions will make 250hp, Euro versions 240hp for the HiPower version), and revs wonderfully to 9k rpm. However, they say there is some flywheel effect in between gearshifts (this is done for emissions purposes and aftermarket ECU tuning can fix this problem).

The 6-speed gearbox is great but they say it has a rubbery shift action and tallish overall gearing which is a little disappointing.

They say the chassis is remarkable. It is very neutral. It rolls somewhat in corners, but they say breakaway into oversteer is very progressive and controllable. They say the ride quality is very close to a BMW 330i, not a small feat at all.

In short they say the car is understated competence. The RX-7 is the car that broke your balls, but the RX-8 is the one you'll marry.

Sounds freaking awesome!!!

Oh yeah, US and Japanese sales start in March '03, Euro sales in May '03.:cool:

Re: CAR Magazine RX-8 review
 

:D ;) :)

Does this magazine have a website? :)

O.K., I'm a little confused...
 

From what you're saying, it sounds like CAR did the same test drive the rest of the automotive journalist community got in Japan, but they've thrown in new info. that I thought was not going to happen:

First, I thought runflats weren't going to happen with the RX-8 (heavy, alot of unsprung weight). In addition, I didn't even think Bridgestone made RE040's in a runflat version. Why would a spare tire be an option if runflats were being equipped? Is it a choice between runflats or spare? I would like to have clarification on that.

This is the first I've heard of "flywheel effect" and would like clarification on that as well. What is it, exactly? What does it have to do with emissions?

This comment contradicts what most others have stated about both the shift action and gearing. In fact, the gear ratios are posted somewhere whereas it has already been determined that the gearing will be very aggressive (for the first 3-4 gears, anyway).

God, they just need to hurry up and get a production model to all these guys already so that these tidbits of info that may or may not be what to expect on the final version.

Re: O.K., I'm a little confused...
 

good point. and i dont think runflats r really neccessary, it would also degrade preformance(heavier)

Does anyone know if this is for the U.S. model or just the Euro spec?
I would rather have normal (non-runflat) tires, and a spare that I could take out of the car if I wanted to save weight. :D

It is not the unsprung weight that I fear; it is the cost of replacing these runflat tires. Has anyone checked out the cost of replacing these tires?

Please, just give me some high performance summer only rubber.

why would u replace em? just get regular tires after the runflats r used up

Re: CAR Magazine RX-8 review
 

1315kg = 2899lbs! This is great news!

Better yet, Automobile said that the new RX-7 will weigh 330lbs less than the RX-8, so this would put it at about 2570lbs. Combine this with the bigger 300hp engine, and this car will be capable of high 12s bone stock! Plus it would destroy anything on a track and last forever. Hmm, if Mazda can wrap that in some nice sexy, classic sportscar styling, I just might be able to find it in my heart to forgive them for not turbocharging the renesis...

CAR is a pretty good mag, but why would they give the weight of the RX-7 as exactly 330 lbs less than the RX-8, when
a) This car doesn't even officially exist yet
b) I'm sure its weight hasn't been released by Mazda, since it is probably still undergoing development.

True, there are no exact numbers at this point, but most likely we can assume about 2900lbs for the RX-8 and about 2600lbs for the new RX-7. And that's accurate enough for the sake of my previous post.

After re-reading the article again, I think CAR made a mistake on the runflats (actually the tires on the car in the article are S-03's).

Anyways, they say that a tire inflation kit with sealant is standard, a full size spare optional. If the car was on runflats, why would they need a tire-inflation kit at all? They wouldn't.

Anyways, overall, the car looks and sounds really good. I will be checking it out at the Detroit Auto Show and it's on the short list for my next car (the other major contender being the GTR).

Good stuff, Mazda.

BTW, the article said nothing about a next generation RX-7, only that they hoped one would be built (they suggested expanding the rotor capacity by another 10mm like they did going from the 12A to the 13B. That would be really cool!)

I fully agree with the thoughts on CAR and EVO. EVO is easily the best magazine in the world, with CAR following second. MT, R&T, CD, and the others would do themselves a real favor by reading a few issues and learning how to make a mag like this. C'mon...just think about it this way, a magazine that doesn't put ANY ads in between pages of an article/story is definately taking the extra step...there is NOT ONE ad stuffed into an article, they all wait patiently for you to finish the article and then put an ad before the start of the next article...attention to customers!

Originally posted by RX8-Rob

Oh yeah, US and Japanese sales start in March '03


Ordered my WRX after it was shown at Detroit Show on January 10th over the internet. Took delivery on March 12.

Re: O.K., I'm a little confused...
 

Well, I 've never heard of "flywheel effect" either, but I assume that they are referring to the annoying tendency of the engine to "hang", or maintain the pre-shift RPM, after the clutch has been depressed and the accelerator released while shifting from one gear to the next. It makes the engine feel as if it has one big-assed flywheel with such a high moment of inertia that the engine has no chance to drop toward idle in between shifts. It is really REALLY annoying.

I am certain that Grim, or Big-Headed-Know-It-All, or somebody with more knowledge than I, can tell you the reason why this is somehow beneficial with respect to emissions: I personally have no idea. I just know that my '02 Accord does it, and it drove me up the wall when I first got the car. You can actually accelerate the engine to 3000-4000 RPM while accelerating in 1st (or 2nd or 3rd or... you get the idea), clutch and release the accelerator, and take a FULL 1 SECOND PAUSE (!) before the stupid RPM starts to drop toward idle... I have gotten used to it on the Accord, and since I don't drive that car for kicks, it is a tolerable foible.

But if this "flywheel effect"is going to be prominent on the RX-8.... ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Intolerable for a sports car! ...stupid tree huggin'... mumble mumble...

Re: Re: O.K., I'm a little confused...
 

i've never heard of this feature either, and cannot begin to think of a reason of why this might somehow benefit engine operation or emissions...
really, it may only be in place to discourage "dangerously" fast acceleration, or street racing...???

My brother has a '95 Contour with the Duratec V-6: it too suffers from this "flywheel effect". The guys over at whatever forum he frequents that caters to Contour owners had a minor do-it-yourself fix, which did improve the problem, but only minimally. My point is (and I do have one...) that this rev hanging thing is a known "feature" on at least some cars, and I have always heard it spoken of as an emissions related thing (Honda told me this also). Additionally, since the new 6 uses an updated Duratec, I wonder if it suffers from the same problem?

Clearly there must be other, better ways of solving whatever emissions problem is being solved with the rather inelegant solution of having the revs hang up between shifts. And certainly this sort of nonsense is unacceptable for a sports car.

Lets hope it is a pre-production thing only.

Re: Re: O.K., I'm a little confused...
 

Indeed. My '87 MR2 has this 'feature', probably mainly by virtue of its heavy flywheel. I theorize a lightweight flywheel will fix the problem for me. On the RX-8, will that be enough? Hmmmmm.

The flywheel effect isn't just the moment of inertia. It is the rotational kinetic energy, 1/2 I * (omega squared) = moment of inertia multiplied by the angular velocity squared. So shifting at 9000 instead of 6000, the engine (main shaft and rotors) clutch and trans input shaft have 2.25 energy to loose as compared to shifting at 6K.

This is going to be murder on the second gear synchonizers, and progressive less worse on the closer spaced gears.

Although throttle by wire could completely close the throttle during shift for more throttle braking.

Maybe Mazda is developing a dual clutch transmission ala VW Audi TT 3.2 VRG. Golf R32, Bugatti Veyron. so there wouldn't be this synchronizer issue.

OK, I could be wrong on this, but I don't think that flywheel "effect" has as much to do with the actual flywheel as it does the way that the emissions, through the electronic engine management (or whatever), is set up. In other words, I think it is just an electronic mapping or such solution to some unknown (at least to me) emissions problem. It is called flywheel effect simply because it gives the feel of an oversized flywheel...

I think I know what 73JPS is refering to. It sounds like it could be what CAR is talking about. If I accelerate with the pedal about two-thirds to the floor in my WRX and let the revs climb above about 3500 or so, after letting off the throttle to shift, the revs climb about 500 rpm. If I accelerate pedal-to-the-metal and let the rpms climb higher, this doesn't happen.

Hey guys,

Flywheel effect (or lack thereof) is how fast an engine returns to idle after you release the gas. In general, the faster it is, the more fun and responsive the engine feels.

There is very little flywheel effect in my S2000, and it is fun banging through the gears, rev-matching etc.

A VW 1.8T, on the other hand, has a rediculous flywheel effect. It takes seconds to swap cogs on those cars (a serious injustice to the engine).

Flywheel effect used to be caused exclusively by heavy flywheels. Heavy flywheels store more energy and hence take longer to wind down from speed.

Today, another contributor to flywheel effect is the damn ECU programming. It is done for emissions purposes. When an engine decelerates quickly, it can expel a lot of unburnt gas and fuel out the exhaust (ever see a race car decelerating and downshifting? You'll occassionally see flames popping out of the exhaust - bad for emissions!!!).

If you slow down the de-revving process, less unburnt fuel is expelled, hence the reason this is done.

I think with aftermarket ECU tuning and (if required) an aftermarket flywheel, this engine will rev-drop with the best of them. Afterall, it is a rotary!:p

For at least the last 10 years, the engine control electronics cut the fuel supply (no fuel injector pulse width) in overrun conditions. Anyway since the throttle is closed, it is not like the engine is going to pump a lot of air into the hot catalytic converters, cooling them off.


Plus today's engines have far less internal friction, so there is less engine braking, so the rotating components will stay rotating.

No, it's the ECU tuning. F20C has far less internal friction than other four cylinder engines and it's revs drop like a stone, even from 9000rpm. Rotaries should have hardly any inertia, and if the RX-8 revs drop slowly, it's in the ECU, or a rediculously oversized flywheel.

Even my 19 year old RX-7 has a throttle return dashpot that keeps the revs up slightly and allowing unspent gasses from emitting out the tailpipe abruptly..simple I removed it and run a full open exhaust anyways. An oversized flywheel? If anything it is heavy...but it would certainly keep the engine from revving freely up to the 9000 rpm redline as well as reduce engine response. Just put it this way.. the engine will remain up on the powerband for those who shift slowly. Enough speculation..I'm just going to wait until the car is out. :D