^-----i think my last post may be overlooked because its the last post on the last page, so ill post it again because im really curious.

but what about suspension upgrades? i ask because of the light-distance-gauging thing that was on the back of the camo rx8. any thoughts on suspension upgrades on the new rx8????

 

yes, mazda did improved the suspension on the new rx8, which they said is to reduce NVH and gives better handling. also mazda will have suspension upgrades from Bilstein as options.

 

cool thx for the info

 

Pics from 2008 NAIAS. Car was up on a podium and closed. No one was allowed in it that I saw. Hood and trunk were closed as well. Tires are Bridgestone Potenza RE 050s 225-40/19. The block next to the temp/radio display is for airbag disable.

 

More pics from today's show. Looks like climate control is not auto.

 

More pics from NAIAS. I like the note in the lower right corner of the card "Fastest growing car company in the US". PIM me if you want any of these as full-resolution JPGs (~2.6 MB each).

 

Guys, any bigger resolution pics of the NON-RS (R3) version of the RX8?

Thanks!

Now the confusion is that i dunno which one will make it to Singapore.

Based on history, our local specced cars are very different from the grades that are offered in the US and australia.

All i have to do is just wait and see.

 

they don't have the weight on that flyer

 

Sorry, they only had the 1 blue one on the floor today.

 

cool. nice to see the specs sheet without all the important info

 

Many Japanese four cylinders spin over 3000 at 80mph, several nissans, Mazdas, subarus I have rode on and driven.

The RX-8 has the right rear end at 4.444, just the wrong 6th gear ratio. We have more torque than the lower powered four cylinders. At 80mph, I would say 3500rpm is good for a car our weight and torque. 4.7 is a bonus, straight line acceleration would be improved, but they GOT to change the 6th gear ratio.

I don't exactly agree that the RX-8 should have a 4.1 from the factory at all. Skip a gear on streets, it needs the 4.44 when driven hard.
________
Vaporizer wiki

 

have a 4.10 and let the car loose out in acceleration?!?

when the new car hits the streets its gonna sell because torque sells. no 1 cares about mambo jumbo, if it feels good, its good.

 

I dont like the Miata wheel lol or the G35S back end boooo!

 

You act like 4:10 isn't much! How many other production cars out there have 4:10 rear ends? How many have 4.44:1 rear ends? Show me even 1 anywhere that has a 4.77:1. There's a reason. Please don't give me the it's a rotary not a piston engine crap. That's irrelevant. A small engine is a small engine. The reason we don't see this is because the engine spins too damn fast, the gears appear too short, and your economy suffers on the freeway due to high engine speeds while cruising. When does it finally get too high? What's it going to take? You obviously think 4.10 is nothing at all and that 4.44 needs to be improved. How high does it have to go before you are satisfied?

I could care less about what speed the car should be going at when it hits redline in any gear with a different rear end ratio. That isn't up for debate and is completely irrelevant. The engine doesn't have the power to do this anyways. I suppose we need a rear end ratio that is so aggressive that the car hits max rated speed at redline in top gear. Then people could say that the car does X mph and that it's finally geared aggressively enough. Nevermind the fact that it would be spinning at 5000 rpm at 80 mph on the freeway! But hey, it accelerates faster!

I hate this flawed ridiculous logic! There are 2 things that should have been done to the car instead of getting a crazier and more bandaided rear end ratio. If the car can't meet it's acceleration numbers it should have either come with a different, more powerful engine, or weighed less as a vehicle. Changing the rear end ratio is a solution to the fact that neither of these was accomplished. I find it funny how so many people complain about how the gas mileage is so poor and then others complain about how the car is underpowered. If it's underpowered, then it is so because it's got too much weight for the power level at hand. Get aggressive on gearing to make up for this and kill mileage. Change the gearing to allow better economy and then it seems too slow due to a lack of power. You see the real issue here?

I personally think the power level is fine for what the car is. It handles good, it drives nice, and it accelerates nicely. I could care less what other car can out perform it and I could care less about what mullet headed redneck thinks about torque being king. I feel that with the available power at hand that the 4.44 ratio is far too aggressive and that it needs to come down to 4.10 to make the car feel like it should. It feels weird right now. It's always felt wrong based on the rear end. I know some may disagree but it just does. It could have a 4.10 and be just fine. A 4.10 won't slow it down anymore than a 4.77 will make it faster. It depends at what speed we are referring to but then again we all know everyone here is a law abiding citizen who doesn't believe in speeding, or displays of acceleration.

If I can keep a 127 hp Civic under 3000 rpm when upshifting and stay up with traffic, I don't think any RX-8 owner could complain about doing the same. Unless of course you're saying they can't do it! I do hear that alot here. Someone always seems to complain that they can't stay up with traffic in acceleration. I can at 3000 rpm so you guys shouldn't need a ridiculously stupid rear end ratio!

 

^lol

 

I see where you're coming from, Fred, but I disagree with you on a few points. At Mid-Ohio, I kind of felt like I was stuck between third and fourth gear... third would top out on the straights but 4th put me out of the powerband on corner exits, so I was constantly flipping between the two. Your 4.10 rear end would definitely have helped me here. But, I don't think it feels weird on the streets. Most of my highway driving is around 65 (damn Ohio speed limits), which puts me a tad over 2000 in 6th and I have no issue with that, though I concede a lower ratio in 6th might be nice. I like the thing to be rev happy, and I while it does run out of gear fairly soon, I kind of like that; shifting is part of the fun of a manual transmission. Maybe Mazda did it intentionally to keep the revs up and the buzzer on... I mean, try and find a review of the car where they don't mention that. All the power is up top anyway, so if the gear ratio keeps me there, I can't complain. Until I stop for a fill-up, at least (but even then it's my own damn fault).

I think I just hit on the biggest issue I have with the new model. If Mazda had called me up and asked me what I wanted, I'd have said, except for a few more horsepower, don't change a thing. But they did.

 

More interestingly can anyone tell me if the Short shifter of RP will work on this new rear diff ratio ? , is there any difference that one should be made aware of .


Cheers
Michael

 

Whats up with all those hoses circling around the intake....I can't remember seeing them on my buddy's 8? Is it just because maybe it is just a slapped together show car?

 

One thing that is being overlooked is that it's not just the axle ratio that has an effect on cruising rpm and individual gear top speeds, it's the combination of the axle ratio as well as the gear ratios. Since it looks like this refresh will get a changed transmission, I hope Mazda takes the opportunity to correct the ratio spread. As mentioned previously, 3rd and 4th have a massive gap that really makes the engine fall out of its powerband while 5th and 6th is in my opinion too close. If Mazda tightens up 1st to 4th or 5th and allows the 6th cruising gear to use less rpm per mph, then I think it would be the best of both worlds.

 

I think it might be the case that the power is higher across part of the rev range (i.e. the area under the curve is larger), but the peak hp hasn't changed significantly.

 

that would be the best solution

 

we all know the car was overrated at 232, maybe now the car has 232 for real, that would mean the car makes 200 to 205 RWHP

 

i wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

 

Hey Fred... they make an automatic for people that don't like to shift. And this time, it's got the same amount of HP even!

--kC

 

This looks to me to be realted to the display. All the backlights are on in the dash so this may be a power source. It looks like a long cable wrapped up in a circle.