Precisely. Lets hope they do.

 

Then how come the auto transmission allows for lower revs at the same speed? This may well be the reason why some people say their auto gets better gas mileage than what the manual reports would suggest.

 

Have you tried accelerating up-hill in an auto in top gear? lol

 

I never even drove one

 

$100k all at once is a lot harder to choke down for most than buying the car and spending a few years adding mods. And $100k puts you in contention with a lot of other cars with far better reputations, and none of the drawbacks that the rotary has.

Personally, I like the niche that the RX8 occupies NOW.

Besides, any new "supercar" will just be another paddle shifted abortion. Do not want.

 

Then consider yourself lucky.

 

If I win the Powerball today, I will just buy a Tesla at $101,500 and say goodbye to the RX8...

 

You need to be in 4th gear to accelerate uphill in an auto. Sometimes even 3rd. I know very well =\

 

Shouldn't you buy 3? Each one only lasts 20 minutes of decent driving for 16+ hours of charging. Need at least 3 to maintain a working one.

No, get a Frasier-Nash Namir..... Better mileage (97.x), better torque, better HP, better handling, lower weight.


Oh, and help them get it to production

 

Buy an Exige S and leave the electricity in the lightbulbs.

 

LOL

What I really want, is a tubocharged 16X

 

have you ever seen a lithium battery go up? It's rather violent... I'm surprised the Tesla isn't considered an IED.

 

Yes it does.
and
No, not necessarily.
and
No, why would you?

The automatics manage just fine with much higher gearing in 5th & 6th for cruising. Need more torque for acceleration or hill climbing, just flick down a gear or two and it's there. Why do you think there are 6 gears anyway?

I regularly commute out to Palm Springs over highway 60, which includes a number of significant hills. So I just stick it in 4th or 5th, I have all the rpm range and power I could ever use, and fly over at 80 mph. Honestly, what more does anyone need?

And it's reeely nice being able to cruise at 90 mph @ 3000 rpm...

 

+1 I'm down with that

 

Ever seen a tank of gasoline go up? There's far more energy in a tank of gas than a electric car battery (can't complain about the driving range without acknowledging that!)

 

When cars started using gas, there was the same worries about the dangers of a car carrying around a dozen, or a few dozen gallons of highly flamable liquid. Electric cars have the same concerns, even if a different fighting method. Same with Hydrogen, LNG, etc...

You will never be able to bypass that danger. Vehicles require energy to move, and you have to store that energy within the car somehow (unless we go to draping electric lines above every paved surface in the world or go to wind/solar/tidal powered cars), and no matter what efforts are made to make that energy as stable as possible, sudden release of that energy will always be a possibility. Especially if you crash your nuclear powered car into the gasoline powered motorcycle which hits the hydrogen powered rotary which hits the LNG powered bus which derails the electric train... The farther you want to go, the more energy you have to store. The faster you want to be able to go, the more unstable that energy has to be (generally speaking, I know there are variances there). So if you want a fast car that goes longer between fillups, well, you are going to have to generally store more energy. Using that energy efficiently is the target of most of these companies, but the base rule is still there.


Those kinds of dangers don't bother me one bit. It bothers me more that a hint of danger sends politicians and soccer moms screaming bloody murder.

We will never get to space colonization until people are willing to accept that accidents happen. Because they WILL. It's part of life. Part of being human.

 

^ I agree with you dude. I hate politicians and soccer moms.

 

Actually, the reaction from a burning Li-ion is far more vigorous than gasoline.

When a tank of gasoline does manage to catch fire, its just a slow, relatively cold immolation.
When a Li-ion battery is burning, it is like a blow-torch. The Li-ion will expend its energy much faster than the gas.

 

Faster or slower than the reaction from gasoline fumes from a partially, or mostly empty, tank?

The danger from gasoline (and other fuels) has always been from the fumes, not as much the liquid.

Gets down to the A/F ratio present actually....(I think)

 

Well, obviously, as you approach stochiometric ratios, gasoline is pretty inflammable stuff.

So, in that way, gasoline and Li-ion are somewhat inversely proportional in their risk - a gas tank gets more dangerous as it empties but a Li-ion batter gets safer (as its potential is drained).

That said, cars don't blow up in reality like they do on "The A-Team". They usually just smolder.

 

True. A few pounds of C4 in the gas tank....plus the extra gas tank that they added in the engine bay, plus the nitroglycerin they lace into every available cloth surface...certainly helps the reaction a bit.

I have personally seen the exception to that "usually" 3 times. Once was a fireball from a truck that reached across the right and middle lanes of the 3-lane NJ turnpike from the shoulder, about 200 feet behind me.

I even caught the burning truck on camera as I passed, though camera was pointing the wrong way to catch the explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdbtIrJHdrQ


So I guess it's all relative odds anyway, Both of being near either, and how full the energy capacity is at the time





I think we sidetracked a bit...

 

Not at all!
"Potential energy" is a major underlying factor in this entire discussion.

 

So what would your opinion be of a series hybrid set up for an 'enthusiast':

Assuming 6 geared transmission, 1st through 5th engage as traditionally occurs, direct power from the fire breathing 16X, geared appropriately for acceleration and fun.

6th gear does not have the same output shaft, but instead a separate output shaft (makes it easier to place the gear in the transmission I would think), which sends power to an electric generator which powers an electrical motor which sends power down the existing drivetrain, complete with 6th gear mapping radically different than 1st through 5th for prime efficiency at low load. The electrical motor doesn't need to output much power to keep the chassis at cruise (at any speed), somewhat noticable acceleration is what HP is really needed for from electrical motors, not cruise, so it could be a relatively small motor compared to existing hybrids. If you need to accelerate, that is what the other gears are for. But cruise, at any speed, you shift (literally) into efficient series hybrid mode.

You don't have the drop in 'fun' for those that don't care about mileage, but when people want to care, their mileage sky rockets. You might even be able to design it so that it is entirely contained within the transmission (albeit a larger transmission than current, though the extra bulk could be just about anywhere, no need to make it higher off the road).



Of course there would be some design stuff to flesh out from that idea...(power linkage tuning, etc...)

 

just wanted to touch back on this for a moment. one thing this misses is a bit of perspective. Nissan sold a millionish 350s. Mazda plans to sell only about 1.3 million cars total worldwide this year. So you have to take in to account the relative volumes of the two companies when talking about the sales of particular models.

 

But this is a chicken-and-egg argument.
Are you saying that if the RX-8 enjoyed the same market frenzy and popularity as the 350Z, Mazda wouldn't comply and would restrain production?

Mazda's "expectations" are based on their restrictions as a manufacturer - they don't have the funds and means to create a vehicle on the scale of the 350Z and they don't expend the dollars in marketing to create the demand.

Instead, they concentrate on being perceived as a "niche" brand that caters to a particular market - a market that increasingly doesn't persist.