Mazda Announces 2006 RX-8 Details
01-06-2006, 01:14 PM
#29
CAW CAW
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tamas
Not with the car - but with the HP claims.
Do you think even the 232 is incorrect?
Why cant a man get an accurate hp rating? This is nuts
01-06-2006, 01:25 PM
#30
Originally Posted by TODreamer
Do you think even the 232 is incorrect?
Why cant a man get an accurate hp rating? This is nuts
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.
01-06-2006, 02:22 PM
#32
Glitchy Rotary Madness
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TALAN7
Doesn't matter anyway cause what the car really needs is torque.
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.
01-06-2006, 02:23 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TALAN7
This SAE thing just helps Mazda with their horsepower woes. Now they can blaim it on the new test and also can blend in with all the other cars that had their numbers restated. This just hurts for RX8 owners because when the 8 was first introduced Mazda claimed 250 hp, then rerated to 247, then after many people purchased them, they rerated it at 238. Now it goes down again. I know the rerating doesn't affect the performance and it's still the same car, but imagine if the car really made the 250 hp that was originally stated. There would be no discussions on lack of power.
01-06-2006, 02:30 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
01-06-2006, 02:31 PM
#35
CAW CAW
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tamas
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.
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.
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.
01-06-2006, 02:38 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
01-06-2006, 02:51 PM
#37
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tamas
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.
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.
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
Last edited by r0tor; 01-06-2006 at 02:54 PM.
01-06-2006, 02:53 PM
#38
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aspire705
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?
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?
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.
01-06-2006, 02:56 PM
#39
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by r0tor
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 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
01-06-2006, 02:57 PM
#40
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
01-06-2006, 02:59 PM
#41
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
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, which is quite plausible
01-06-2006, 03:03 PM
#42
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
01-06-2006, 03:24 PM
#43
Health Supplement User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
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
how many here are putting 91% of 232 HP to the wheels?
HAHA
01-06-2006, 03:51 PM
#44
Administrator
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
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
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.
01-06-2006, 04:14 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by r0tor
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.
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?
01-06-2006, 04:35 PM
#46
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
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
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.
01-06-2006, 05:48 PM
#47
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Aspire705
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?
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?
01-07-2006, 03:30 PM
#48
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 ****, 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
* 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 ****, 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
01-07-2006, 05:39 PM
#49
Stuck in a love triangle
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.
01-07-2006, 06:35 PM
#50
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: atlanta ga
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.