I wonder when this thing ever comes out, it could be right around the time my engine is dying...SWAP!!! SWAP!!! SWAP!!! haha, would be sick! You know it was 2yrs ago I was saying Mazda needs to make a larger displaced engine for the RX8. I wanted 270-300hp N/A, the 8 would fly!

 

that would be B A! hell, i would even buy the tranny too if the driveshaft splines are the same

 

That's why the AT's redline lower than the MT's do. So in a sense that is right

 

The renesis had more revs to give but the ports won't allow for more power.
________
Laguna Heights Condominium

 

thats why we must get porting done like rotorygod says

 

Revving the engine higher is a waste of time. As you do this your powerband gets narrower and you lose low and midrange power. You can't change this. I feel no need to rev any higher and would actually like to see it go down. I also don't like the 4.44:1 rear end ratio as it too is too aggressive and needs to go back down to a 4.10:1.

 

why do you want it to go down? i thought this car was made to be aggressive

 

There is no such thing as centrifugal force.


Aggressive doesn't necessarily mean high revving. There are plenty of cars out there that are aggressive and don't rev to 9500 RPM or develop peak power at 8200 RPM (or wherever it is). Vettes are plenty aggressive and they develop peak power at 5900 RPM.
The car would be fantastic if it revved to 7000 RPM and had substantial midrange torque. It would be even more fantastic if it had some bottom end torque too.

 

Why do you need 10,000 rpms to be aggressive? My RX-7 cuts fuel at 8000 rpm and that's plenty. That's more than most cars on the road. The engines that do rev higher NEED to rev higher. I don't want that. This isn't F1. We need practicality. Bearing stresses go up with the cube of rpm so every rpm you spin it faster, you decrease bearing life. After 7000 rpm, bearing stresses go through the roof in a hurry.

 

I think part of the charm of the RX-cars has been it's high revving nature. It's how it reaches that high rev zone effortlessly that people love about it and magazine writers rave over it. Somehow lowering it to pedestrian rpms would be like going to Disneyland but not see Mickey.
If practicality is that important, then why drive a manual?

 

wich one would you rather have? 300hp and 8,500 rpms or 232hp and 9,000rpms?

 

even better, 300 rwhp, I do agree with you guys, the high rpms is nice and makes this car stand out, but having the low to mid range torque would be awesome, cause that is a lot of what the renesis needs, i just want to buy the engine and tranny, and throw it into my 8

 

would you want a 350z or an RX-8?

 

A rx-8 with rotary engine that makes 350z power and torque

if that is going to cost 500rpms peak less, so be it, that is until RB give us a flash to get it to 9,000+ rpms

 

Would you like it to transform into a 3-storey tall robot as well?

 

I dont really like robots

I dont think 240rwhp and 210rwt is too much to ask

 

+1! that would be a punch in the face, even though we have them beat on the track there was a 350 with new flywheel, intake, exhaust, sway bars, and a bunch of other stuff vs a completely stock rx8 with RPF1's and we still beat him. 63 sec vs 67

 

pfft...its still a civic...heh

 

And those #'s dont have to be if the car is lightter, but if the car is going to stay at 3000lbs this would be the #'s to have

but giveng mazda track racord I think if they make a 2nd gen rx-8 its going to weight 2,850lbs

 

I highly doubt we'll see 210 torque at the wheels. My guess would be that we'll be lucky to get 200 torque at the crank.

 

Agreed

for me 280+ hp and 190lbft would be good

 

yes

 

soemone asked why you needed 10,000 rpm. silly man. just cause you can.

 

What good is it to rev an engine to 9000, 10000, 11000, if peak horsepower is at 8500?

 

to save a shift