Facelifted RX8 revealed!!!!
I don't see how a change in the final drive would alter the gearbox. If the RP shifter doesn't work on the new model there's a different reason.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: Tacoma, Washington
I read through this thread, but could not find any answer to this question....
does any one know roughly WHEN WILL THE 09's BE OUT ?
I'm getting a RX8 in the near future but don't know if I should wait for the 09's or not. I love the way our current RX8 looks, but the rumor about the new oil system, suspensions, much rigid body and improved(?) gear box really got my attention....
does any one know roughly WHEN WILL THE 09's BE OUT ?
I'm getting a RX8 in the near future but don't know if I should wait for the 09's or not. I love the way our current RX8 looks, but the rumor about the new oil system, suspensions, much rigid body and improved(?) gear box really got my attention....
everyone who guessed that- good Job!!
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
different tranny will mean a redesign of the shifter by RP. reverse is on the other side so at the least the reverse lockout tab will have to change
Senor Carnegrande
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
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.
Then you shift up to 5th. It's only like a 600~700 RPM difference, that seems a little too close. Then 6th is a ridiculous joke. It's only 300 RPM lower than 5th! I can't imagine why Mazda did this. Maybe Aisin cut them a really good deal on this particular gearset to clear out inventory, who knows.
Anyway, this creates two major annoyances. One, you are humming along the freeway at 4,000 RPM @ 80 mph. Two, when passing on the freeway, the logical and easy thing would be a quick flick of the wrist down to 5th. But that's worthless in the car as it is now. So you awkwardly shift down from 6th to 4th or 3rd. Seriously, they could leave out 5th gear and I wouldn't notice it.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 2
From: everywherez...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
From where I got the picture, it said.. "Furthermore the cable is something of the exhibition which has been connected to the battery"
The Prototype
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
To me, gears 1-4 seem just about perfect. Granted I have not driven the car on a track. No need for a shorter or taller rear ratio; 1-4 are fine.
Then you shift up to 5th. It's only like a 600~700 RPM difference, that seems a little too close. Then 6th is a ridiculous joke. It's only 300 RPM lower than 5th! I can't imagine why Mazda did this. Maybe Aisin cut them a really good deal on this particular gearset to clear out inventory, who knows.
Anyway, this creates two major annoyances. One, you are humming along the freeway at 4,000 RPM @ 80 mph. Two, when passing on the freeway, the logical and easy thing would be a quick flick of the wrist down to 5th. But that's worthless in the car as it is now. So you awkwardly shift down from 6th to 4th or 3rd. Seriously, they could leave out 5th gear and I wouldn't notice it.
Then you shift up to 5th. It's only like a 600~700 RPM difference, that seems a little too close. Then 6th is a ridiculous joke. It's only 300 RPM lower than 5th! I can't imagine why Mazda did this. Maybe Aisin cut them a really good deal on this particular gearset to clear out inventory, who knows.
Anyway, this creates two major annoyances. One, you are humming along the freeway at 4,000 RPM @ 80 mph. Two, when passing on the freeway, the logical and easy thing would be a quick flick of the wrist down to 5th. But that's worthless in the car as it is now. So you awkwardly shift down from 6th to 4th or 3rd. Seriously, they could leave out 5th gear and I wouldn't notice it.
I just blip the throttle before i do it to ensure a smooth 3rd gear downshift.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 2
From: everywherez...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
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!
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!
We I ran in the autoX I will like to have something like a 4.77. Butween some turns happens the same that someone commented too much for one gear and no power in the next gear. I don't care to go in the highway at 4,000rpm. In fact sometimes i take the car to work (about 15 miles in highway) and doesn't even puth it in 5th. You could have a 4.90 and a lower 6th and it will have almost the same MPG. Othwerwise get a Yaris!!. Also You don't see many cars with 4.77 because no one needed. When your power peek is at 8,000rpm you need a big diff. Ask the Honda people
Registered
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 665
Likes: 1
From: Charlotte
its been discussed in this thread somewhere but god knows where. There is even an illustration showing the uneven line across the bottom of the trunk lid and the bottom of the rear light box. They are not the same height anymore unfortunatley 
Downhill Touge FTW!!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
From: Buena Park
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 21,958
Likes: 115
From: portland oregon
Registered
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
From: Puyallup, WA
rotary courage
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
From: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Cruise control is great for long roadtrips. The 8 is so smooth and composed at high speeds that if there are no other cars nearby I often catch myself doing 95 or so... I'm not really intending to go that fast, it just feels normal. I don't want to go through a speed trap like that, so I like having cruise control in these situations.
RX-8 = Japanese MG
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
From: Bay area, CA
The 'refreshed' RX-8 is non-news.
No wonder Mazda ginned up the Furai, which they will never, every build anything like for the street since it would give the Mustang GT500 an ***-whuppin'
Gimme a break, Mazda.
No wonder Mazda ginned up the Furai, which they will never, every build anything like for the street since it would give the Mustang GT500 an ***-whuppin'
Gimme a break, Mazda.