Doesn't matter anyway cause what the car really needs is torque.

even at 232.... it purring down around 170 in whp still doesnt make sense... something is wrong with this car

Not with the car - but with the HP claims.

But what I'm saying is that even now after its known HP has been "corrected" by thrid party to 232 (which is supposed to be correct) it still doesnt make sense why it only puts down 170.

Do you think even the 232 is incorrect?

Why cant a man get an accurate hp rating? This is nuts

Seems like it... :(

Yes, it is.
I think the reason must be marketing and the fact that Mazda was touting the car to be 250 HP before it was released... they can't just say after all those claims that sorry, it's only 220 in reality.
The 232 is just the result of the different, new method of saying the old 238 claim. Based on the dyno results, it appears Mazda still didn't fess up to the real output the car makes.

But all in all, I'm fine with what I get from the RX-8, no matter if it's 238 HP or 220 HP. My only gripe is the fuel consumption, but even that is bearable. So I'm a happy camper - hope it will stay that way.

Oh, I think I see what you mean. Thanks.

What the car needs is a good 2 or 3 gear downshift (rev-matched, double-clutched) and a firm kick in the gas pedal.

Torque is for lazy folks who want a car to pin them to the seat in top gear doing 60. If it doesn't do this, it is instantly declared a 'wimp' or worse. Sad, because all that a driver needs to do is get the engine into the fat part of the torque and hp bands, and *then* mash the gas.

Too much work, I guess.

Even if it got the 250 HP, a lot of us would still have complained!

Not to put a downer on the thread or nething...but I'm not completely sure this new rating system is as accurate as they say.

For ex., the Acura TL went from 270 to 258chp, yet they dyno ~223whp. Now I'm not sure bout u guys but that 258chp # doesn't make much sense to me unless Acura somehow figured out how to reduce their manual tranny loss to ~13%. Now the original 270chp makes sense to me.

223/258 =.87 or ~87% dt efficiency whereas
223/270 =.87 or ~83% dt efficiency.

Makes more sense to me given it's a manual tranny. I dunno, wut do u guys think?

see I dont own this car but I really want to want it. Eventhough more power is aways better I'm content with what the RX8 delivers for the price and feel that the car is a great fit for me at this point in my life..... but all these "lies" relating to this car really puts a tarnish on the whole thing.

The 1/4 mile times the car can produce are well documented on this board and in many magazines. Everything else is irrelevant...whether it's 247-238-232, it's still as capable as it always was.

Marketing can not change the certified power claim. To be certified the advertised power must match the number the independant observer reported.

The accuracy of a certified engine dyno that is calibrated and run by a trained person is not comparable to going to Joe Blows shop and strapping your car on his chassis dyno and leaving him operate it.

The hp controversy is dead... period

The TL is a fwd car which will always be more efficient due to not having to spin a 6ft long driveshaft and varios other extra drivetrain components. 13% for a fwd car is about right.

It's not dead. The dyno is the manufacturer's and it's in their facility. Calibration can't stop a host of things that the manufacturer can do on the fly.

a certified 232 hp for 2006 RX-8 engines *only*, it will be interesting to see how they dyno compared to the earlier models, there may have well been a reason Mazda delayed the 2006, perhaps they were about to be busted for another overrated power output claim and had to retune the PCM to get where they are now, which is quite plausible

But what if they revert back in the middle of 2006 production? So the certified dynos have to continue year round. Are they going to do that?

btw, a 13% transmission loss is atrocious, it shouldn't even be half that, I posted a graph in the aftermarket performance area showing the distribution results of over 400 engines\modles tested for the difference in drivetrain losses and the major average was 7 - 9 %, anything above 15% was considered to be a defective transmission or the manufacturer lying about the real output

wow, in that case...is there a single non-defective 8 out there?

how many here are putting 91% of 232 HP to the wheels?

HAHA

no the delay was caused by use of the factory for other vehicles, excess 2005s in the states and issues stemming from the low power engines seizing up in Vegas etc.

I fully understand that FWD cars should be more efficient than RWD cars but 13% is still too low. Haven't you ever compared dyno #s for a FWD car to its rated chp?

Well neway, 16-18% is usually the avg. for manuals & 20-22% is the norm for autotragics.

So you still don't think this new system is wrong when it comes to the TL?

What kinda dynos we talkin about here? We're talkin about the diff. from advertised crank hp/tq to wheel hp/tq bein b/w 7 - 15% right?

Cuz I'm pretty sure ur #s are waaaayyy off from wut MOST enthusiasts are getting for MOST cars on MOST dynos under MOST conditions. Actually, I've never even heard of or seen an example of any production vehicle dynoing within less that 15% of its advertised chp.

Can you post a link showing such an example? Or how about a link to that graph? Mind sharing where this data came from? Cuz if you can prove that assumption, I'll revoke any thoughts I've ever had about pursuing any career in the automotive field. I hope ur right tho...wouldn't want to diminish your credibility or nething.

my 93 Probe GT lost 12%....

Other details:

* Smooth finish of leather seat side bolster in lieu of previous wrinkle finish
* Deletion of back plastic cover on leather seats
* Semi-gloss finish on interior chrome application – Meter Ring, Air Conditioning Dial, Air Vent Grille Ring, Air Vent Louver Knob, Shift Base Ring and Rotary bezel in seat headrest. (As previously featured on Special Edition model introduced December 2004)
* Bose ornaments on door trim speaker grills for Bose equipped models (leather pack models)
* Alloy pedals on automatic leather pack model
* Three new colours: Phantom Blue, Galaxy Grey and Snowflake White Pearl

I really don't know who cooks the bullshit at MNAO but I know the real number for the manual's rating is closer to 212 which ironically is the rating of the new automatic. But for those of you who can still buy the bullshit all these years and believe that the manual loses 20% or more at the drivetrain, then the number that makes sense realistically is 225hp. The 232 figure isn't too far off from that so you can see how they can get away with that new number.

Jerky, the new number is not something cooked up. I personally question the old rating and have seen one doing about 220 on an engine dyno with the old factory management. None of the manufactures can just pull numbers out of a hat anymore.