RX-Hachi

The September '04 issue of Sport Compact Car has their picks for the top 8 great rides under $30K. They also did dyno runs on each car:

Mitsubishi Lancer EVO VIII RS: 241 hp, 262 lb-ft torque
Nissan 350Z: 239 hp, 237 lb-ft torque
Dodge SRT-4: 234 hp, 246 lb-ft torque
Subaru WRX: 189 hp, 199 lb-ft torque
Mazda RX-8: 188 hp, 135 lb-ft torque
Mini Cooper S Works: 174 hp, 159 lb-ft torque
Acura RSX Type-S: 173 hp, 125 lb-ft torque
Mazdaspeed Miata: 152 hp, 143 lb-ft torque

They had good things to say about the RX-8. They also mentioned that it would have probably made the list last year, but Mazda was unable to provide them with a production car that they could dyno and test in time. But their test showed the slowest 0-60 time that I've seen for the RX-8 at 6.8 secs and a 14.9 quarter mile. C&D, MT, and R&T all got around 6 secs and 14.5 secs for their respective 0-60 and 1/4 mi. tests.

Fab 8

INteresting to note that the first thing they recommend to modify is the final drive. Good article.

downshift

Yeah, it's interesting that they mentioned final drive. I don't think I've seen this suggestion in the forums. I have to disagree on that 50/50 weight distribution comment though, as BMW is one other manufacturer that does that for all their cars.

shelleys_man_06

Well, at least they complain about pretty much the same thing we're complaining about . Sometimes it feels like this car needs an extra forward gear.

DOMINION

Thats cool.

DisneyDestroyer

Am I misreading this, or did they just say that there was a rotary in the Miata?

mysql101

sounds like 'frame' not 'motor'

wakeech

wtf do they want the final drive to be??? 5.555?? jesus. and people are still complaining about having to cruise at +3000rpm on the freeway

brillo

the 0-60 is prolly a more realistic launch around 2-3K (ie, not a clutch dump from 7000rpm which would destroy the tranny) hence, you get a 6.8 sec.

C&D did a 5-60mph test and the 8 got a 7.5, which shows how much being in the power zone matters, and to me also reinforces my belief in my above statement.

most stoplight launches for our car are in the 6.5-6.7 range, unless you really decide to drive it like you stole it.

Ike

THe mags that tested mid 14s and high 5s 0-60 also had preproduction models from long before the ECU changes.

ezrider55

A shorter final drive? I would rather see a taller final drive so that at 75-80 mph the tac would be in the 3250 to 3700 range. Overall a good article.

brillo

possibly, but at least autoweek and edmunds had production cars, and they got 0-60 of around 6.0sec.

not to mention several folks who sacrificed their tranny's for a 14.32

shelleys_man_06

Speaking of 14.32, what ever happened to Judge Ito?

RX-Hachi

The Motor Trend (Mar. '04) and the most recent R&T test (Aug. '04) were both done with full production cars and they got 6.0 and 6.1 secs for 0-60 respectively. The 1/4 mi. times were 14.49 secs (MT) & 14.6 secs (R&T).

The original C&D test (April '03) and the original R&T test (April '03) both yielded 5.9 secs (0-60) and 14.5 secs (1/4 mi.). So the times for the early production (before US emissions ECU map) and current production (K/L/M flash ECU map) seem near identical.

I'd agree with others that Sport Compact Car probably did a less agressive RPM launch to get their time. Either that, or their test car or conditions may have been less than ideal.

Mag66

ROFL!!

(Sorry for the delayed laugh... Brain in First Gear but fingers in reverse!)

8's enough

188 hp that must be an automatic right?

Labop

Someone will probably beat me to it, but that's WHP, the power that actually makes it to the wheels. 20% loss or so?

Kain

So Ike has one more horsepower than me. sounds like a good race and arm wrestling match next time I am in cheeseland

IZoomZoomI

the loss is roughly around 17% i think. 188 sounds about right. Regarding there comment on shortening the final drive wouldn't this improve acceleration? Last time I checked thats what we needed. Other than getting smaller diameter wheels how else can you modify your gear ratios? And where?

shelleys_man_06

I don't think there is a company that has lower gears for the RX-8. Since there is no demand, there's no short gears. If you shorten the gear ratios, you're most likely to kill off the top speed of the car. The gears in the RX-8 are just fine. The best bet, IMO, is to use smaller wheels. I would recommend something along the lines of the Regamaster EVO's.

https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-wheels-tires-brakes-suspension-55/regamaster-evo-35937/

himitsu

I thought there was some official press release from Mazda to answer why the RX8 did quite poorly at dynos.
The Renesis' power output is generated and controlled by a complex ECU which measures everything including the car dynamics and airflow... factors which are almost impossible to replicate in a stationary dyno station. Which would explains the bad power loss in the dyno. I think there are plenty of real track numbers from reputable car magazines to support this claim by Mazda... its true the RX8 perform better on real road than on a dyno.

shelleys_man_06

Who cares about dyno results?! What matters is if the RX-8 can generate a winning pedigree.

P.S. - I think all of my angry posts happen in the middle of the night. :o

Rob Tomlin

Does there happen to be a link to this article online?

Kafka

Subaru WRX: 189 hp, 199 lb-ft torque
Mazda RX-8: 188 hp, 135 lb-ft torque

So it got more drivetrain lost than a AWD car???

A 227hp AWD WRX has 1 more hp then then the so called 238hp RWD Rx-8?

I was thinking the Subaru should have MORE drivetrain lost....since its AWD??

brillo

Our car is really making about 220-225BHP as Racing Beat has taken an engine and thrown it on an engine dyno, so our drive train loss is about ~15%. So where is the other 25BHP? ask the ECU, Mazda had to tune it down to save the cat from getting cooked by engine heat. It's to bad for most people Cats have to live 150K miles