DSport Magazine Car Review (56k Warning: Big Files)
 

Scanned a few pages from the Sept 2009 issue of DSport Magazine. I tried to resize them as low as I can without making the text from the pages ineligable to read. I apologize if the files are too big.

They reviewed a number of FWD, RWD, and AWD cars but the only cars I scanned are:
- Honda Civic SI
- MazdaSpeed 3
- Honda S2000
- Hyundai Genesis 2.0T
- Hyundai Genesis 3.8
- Nissan 370Z
- Infiniti G37S
- Mazda RX8
- Mitsubishi Evo-X MR
- Mitsubishi Evo-X GSR
- Mitsubishi Ralliart
- Nissan R35 GT-R
- Subaru WRX STI
- Subaru WRX

Since the files are big, I will only post the Mazda RX8 (for obvious reasons ;) ) and the MazdaSpeed3 (which is shared with the Honda Civic SI) for now. If you want to compare them with any of the other cars I listed above, just say which car and I will post the scanned page.

According to the mag, they tested the cars at the Streets of Willow road course. Racepak G2X Data Acquisition System and Vericom VC3000PC were used to collect data. For HP figures, they used a Dynojet 224X dynomometer for the FWD and RWD cars. While a SuperFlow AutoDyn 880 dynomometer was used for the AWD cars. Intercomp SW777RFX wireless scales were also used.

Also, here's the magazine's explanation on their "Advertised" and "Measured" power figures:

The difference between "advertised" and "measured" power figures represent the manufacturer's likelihood of "overrating" or "underrating" engine power output.

"ADVERTISED POWER" represents the manufacturer's claim for horsepower at the flywheel.

"MEASURED POWER" figures represent the calculated flywheel horsepower of each vehicle based on the measured wheel horsepower and a 15-percent assumed driveline loss. "MEASURED POWER" figures can be compared across the group to make real-world comparisons across different cars.

IMO, most people and reviewers miss the point of the RX8. It takes more than 1 or 2 drives to understand how the car works. I've had mine for a little over 3 months now and I'm still figuring out how the engine works best. I'm curious as to what they said about the other RWD cars.

dang, they are really hating on our car.

I'd guess they just didn't get into using the high revs the way they need too for max enjoyment of the limited power available...too bad....and in doing so I'm sure it did feel anemic, specially when they can jump on a 263HP/280ft-lbs MS3 and chuck it around w/power to spare. Compared to that, the 8's a slug, even if fast and nimble.

:nopity: Weird stuff in the review: 0-60 & 1/4 numbers, stupid low ratings for everything(?), WTF up w/the turbo comments not shown, tested, discussed, or id'ed. Fair: the text discussion

So again - Great dynamics, beautiful car, crippled by a engine that simply doesn't meet the power delivery needed to flesh out it's sports car look and feel persona.

..tick...tick...tick...s-i-x y-e-a-r-s (and still counting) Mazda

there 60' time was 2.59. That is horrible!

They got it pretty much right.

I'm just surprised the press car made 190 whp, a car that gets abused consistently and yet makes more whp than a lot of the cars here that are maintained properly.

I was shocked at the 193whp as well. Some modded 8s on here have not seen that high to the wheels.

whoever drove it still sucks. I mean I know the 8 isn't a beast on the 1/4 mile but c'mon 15.8 and a 7.3 0 to 60...

the interesting thing is that they gave props to the ms3, which makes about 250 whp, then shit on the rx8 INCLUDING aftermarket turbo kits, stating that it only makes as much power as a v6.

Give me that 193rwhp STOCK engine NOW! (I've only seen one with my eyes for all the Rx8 dynos so far...in 5 years.)

Most dont even goes above 180...T_T

RX8 is slow no doubt. But they must have had some noob driver drive it to get a 16 second quarter mile. Most mags normally quote mid 14 second times. Stupid comparison tho.

Could you post the track times of the other cars?

the times were a result of a wet track

I think the power rating might be at the crank, seeing as they're saying the speed 3 has 283.8. That would be astonishing if that were at the wheels stock.

Then that's just sad

Okay, I feel stupid because I read the OP's post again, and realized measured power = whp + 15% of the advertised power to make up for the assumed driveline loss.
So in reality, x + 232(0.15) = 193.6
that x, being horsepower to the wheel, is a measly 158.8 whp, thank goodness that's not my 8.

This would also explain why the FWD vehicles have higher measured HP than advertised HP because FWD suffers less driveline loss than RWD, so probably less than 15%.

Okay. Posting the two variants of the Hyundai Genesis coupe for comparison.

Let me know if you want more.

I do wish the Speed3 stayed in boost a little longer. I will agree with that. I hate shifting just when the getting gets good. :)

I could never get into the looks of the NA spec Civic Si. Euro spec Type-R, hell yeah.

By the way, where's the disclaimer stating this article was sponsored by Hyundai? :cwm27:

There's no need. There are still a number of RWD (and also AWD) cars in the article that kicks the Hyundai's behind. :yelrotflm

Sounds to me like you got some scanning/posting to do then. :smoker:

+1 :lol:

Adding Honda's S2000 and Nissan's 370Z into the mix.

They measure the power to the wheels and then used X whp times .15. Then the X amount they got they added to the whp to get their measured horsepower. Damn man, only 193hp... that is really sad!

193.6hp x .15=29.04

193.6hp - 29.04= 164.56whp is absolutely garbage. Heck that's what I got when I dyno'ed my car and I'm sure my coils suck ass.



EDIT: I just looked at the dyno sheet and if you look at the top of the chart you see that the line is very squiggly at the top end. So that means it's the coils that's screwing it up right? Because in the dyno thread, it happened to some guy who had bad coils, im sure of that much :) So I guess they have to change the coils and the spark plugs to have the uptimum power. One last thing, what if they didn't disable the DSC completely?

I fart in their general direction

I like that the 8 has a better track time than the s2000...

i watched the dvd and the 8 only made 164 whp.....and the drag driver was horrible every car had shitty times.....the s2000 ran a 15.5....even with shitty launches a s2000 can run mid 14's.......im still impressed by the 370z though it smoked every body around the track by alot.

But look at the dyno chart... doesn't the car look a bit sick? And +1 for rx8 getting better track time.

Wet track WTF? And yes I personally drove an S200 with an intake to a 14.0 flat in the 1/4. The 8's times are way off as well.

From watching the DVD that came with the magazine, the weather did not cooperate with them on the day of their tests. Hence they were not able to get track performance numbers on a few cars due to rain. And since they were on a deadline for the Sept. issue, they were stuck with a wet track.

So here's another car that got rained out.....

Rx8 lost by only .4 seconds....

yup, even with added power from the 8's competitors it still holds its own on the track.

Remember the good old days when the 8 was new and opinions were more like this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5FNjyaLfC8

Too bad they couldn't bring a 230hp RX-8 to really beat down the S2000 at the track... :lol2:

Seriously though... RX-8 over S2000 by half a second on 1.5 min track? Kinda kills the validity of all the lap times in this test.

*sigh*

imagine if the rx8 really had the 232hp mazda advertised.

The rx8 has a 21% drivetrain loss. The guy at the garage I went to told me that the Dynojet's tech sent it out to all dynojets that rx8's have that much loss at the wheels. So let's say 180whp x 21%=217hp to the flywheel :)

Hehe, I like that the NEW FOR 2010 says Discontinued on the S2000. It kinda seems like they should have some good news there :P

Yeah there appears to be some ignition breakup toward the upper part of the RPM band. I'm sure that didn't help things.

Sounds like that 8 they tested wasn't in very good shape to begin with, and its being compared to cars with drastically more power. A good turbocharger setup with the car will definitely bring the car beyond "V6 performance". Heck, even a GReddy setup properly tuned is going to be pretty damn fast with the 8s chassis. The car should have been factory turbocharged imo.

If all I wanted was an inexpensive and fast car, I'd go buy a Camaro SS and be done with it (if it weren't for the fact that it's the first model year and I don't trust Government Motors, I might). In the end, they can spout all the numbers they want, talk about power to weight ratio, track times, all of that crap, but in the end, to me, it comes down to this question...

Does your car have it? The 8 does.

Imagine if it had the 250HP like it was supposed to have from the start.

I say that Dsport did a pretty fair evaluation of the car at hand. Everyone who drives or has driven a stock Renesis would be lying if they said the car has suprisingly small amount of torque. And thats what you are feeling most of all in the seat of your pants. I never understand how owners get defensive about critisism of the car. No one said you made a mistake buying the car, no one said the car is terrible. The ratings systems are subjective based on what someone who is into Dsport would look for. Seat of the pants feel, a rough idea of HP (whats the point of quibbling over dyno numbers, we all know dyno numbers are not uniform, too many variables), aftermarket support, and track capabilities.
They did the homework, they went out and tested the cars, and reported their findings. Geezum people, relax, and just appreciate the article.

if the RX-8 is "anemic" and still beats a or equals cars around the track with twice as much HP then what is the point of those cars having the extra hp? and what are they doing with it?

My thoughts exactly. Looking at the article, the lap times for all the RWD cars they reviewed are as follows:

Nissan 370Z = 1:28.496 (measured power/torque = 329/272)
Hyundai Genesis 3.8 = 1:31.302 (measured power/torque = 295/276)
Infiniti G37S Coupe = 1:32.246 (measured power/torque = 334/279)
Mazda RX8 = 1:32.634 (measured power/torque = 193/143)
Honda S2000 = 1:33.136 (measured power/torque = 246/172)
Hyundai Genesis 2.0T = 1:34.913 (measured power/torque = 219/263)

The RX8 ranked fourth on the best lap time beating out cars that have more power/torque. Plus the difference in the lap time isn't as big as expected from the cars it didn't beat.

Another thing I just noticed is that they were not using the R3 trim for the RX8. If they were using the S trim for the Infiniti or the Track trims for the Hyundai's (which are their top trims for those cars), why not the R3 for Mazda? I believe the RX8 R3 would've gotten a better lap time because of the better suspension. :scratchhe

If they'd used the track times shown for the ranking...all could be good even with these asshats. Just my opinion, but that just about how I would imagine the cars to work out against each other, perhaps with the exception of the S2000 was a bit too slow.

But the overall category rankings are just plain messed up. An example is "Overall Value" and "Performance" I mean wtf??

Considering the HP and $$ differences.. the results plainly don't sqaure up... I call bullshit or maybe these guys moonlight for Car and Driver. Both mags seem to take the actual results, throw them away and just give it to whatever car suits they're 'gotta have it' fantasy, ta hell with the results.

Personally, I don't give a rats ass what they pick, they get some points for including the RX-8, but then they simply blow smoke and ignore reality, perhaps because the think their readership looks for a different kind of car than the RX-8 represents. But in the end who knows...

...at $35,900 base

Infiniti G37S Coupe = 1:32.246 (measured power/torque = 334/279)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff266/spin9k/g37.jpg

...at $27,185 base

Mazda RX8 = 1:32.634 (measured power/torque = 193/143)

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/f...in9k/rx809.jpg

besides their "measured" figures arent even actually measured figures. those arent the wheel figures those are the wheel figures with some added % to pretend what it gets at the flywheel. . we know from ACTUAL MEASURED ENGINES ON ENGINE DYNOS. that the renesis gets at least 215 at the Flywheel and that newer engines have been seen getting 240+ at the flywheel ACTUALLY MEASURED ON AN ENGINE DYNO.

If they got 164 on a dynojet its because the dynojet had pickup problems for the timing and not because thats what the rx-8 put to the ground. there clearly is no way a car of this weight could put basically the same time on the track as the G-37 with the 193 "measured" flywheel hp they are reporting

"cough" wet track "cough"

Do you take any of the top gear wet laps seriously?

Thought so.