Hello Guys. How does the new RX8 compares to the RX7(1,2,3) in terms of HP and Torque?. Will the RX8 get killed by all the past generations of RX7's?
Thank you

RX8 DX

 

I wouldn't compare the rx-8 to the 3rd gen rx-7 lol , thats all I gotta say..... , maybe handling , but thats about it. No offense to anybody , but my friend's rx-7 would stomp my *** like nothing.

 

Assuming stock all around, I agree. 3rd gen RX-7's were pretty swift. Gen 1 and 2... I think we would have them beat. I've got a friend with a Gen 2. He said he wouldn't race me... oh, well.

 

3rd gen is smaller, lighter, and more hp. nuff said.

 

8 womps all over the stock 1st and 2nd gens. all day.

 

hypothetically remove the twin turbos from the FD and the 8 would easily kill it.
Put a set of twins on the 8, then maybe.
Lots of blown engines on the 3rd Gen when modded.

 

I had a 2nd gen RX-7 and know for a fact that the RX-8 would beat it (especially when you get to the triple digits). The first half of the NA 2nd gen had 146hp and the other half ('89 on) had 160hp so we know what that works out to since the 8 makes more than either of those flywheel numbers at the wheels.

 

when not properly modded taking care of boost spikes, lean conditions, and cooling system.

 

I would rate (stock for stock) the RX-8 like this:

1st gen < 2nd gen < RX-8

3rd gen > RX-8 in almost everything except daily drivability and ease of driving at the limits. The 3rd gen has higher handling limits but requires a better driver while the RX-8 is easier to drive fast.

Also we can say that naturally aspirated Rotaries has been proven extremely reliable while turbocharged ones are very sensitive to modifications and people need to be more careful and pay more attention to detail when modifiying them or they will blow.

 

How about if all gens were stock N/A? How about that? Do we have a chance over them?

 

Comparing the 8 to all of the previous generations of 7's is probably a little fruitless. The manual 8 should beat any stock N/A rotary out there--not necessarily true with the auto. FD's smoke the 8 thanks to higher torque, higher HP and lighter weight. The second gen turbos hang in there with the 8, their performance numbers are similar.
Flat out numbers is not where the 8 shines in comparison to FDs and highly modded earlier 7s. Handling, road feel, fit and finish, braking, etc are much better benchmarks to compare with FDs.
Be wary of any rotary you run up against. Many have been modded and there are some extremely quick first and second gens out there.

 

Xntax, all gens were not NA. The 13B-rew was designed as a turbo engine. It is not appropriate to say what if the turbos were removed. If the turbos were removed the car would not be an FD. If there were a high power version of the car with turbos and a lower power version (like 300zx, supra, 3000gt) then it might be an appropriate question, but since Mazda never released a higher compression, no turbo version of the engine, I don't think it can be discussed that way.

 

Powerwise the rx8 is clearly better then any N/A rotary in the past. In fact, it's not even close. The fact that the rx8 is even as fast or a bit faster then the 2ng generation with a turbo bone stock is quite impressive. I doubt there are many 2nd generation rx7 turbos out there that the rx8 can beat though. All it takes is a few simple mods like adding some boost and exhaust, and the rx8 will definitely lose. It takes about 15 minutes and no money just to make the 2g rx7 turbo run lows all day. It's just so easy to mod a car with a turbo, but of course it has it's risks. I do think though that the rx8 is the best rotary ever in terms of the overall package. Mazda designed it to surpass all others in a general consumer scale, and they have succeded. I think when the mazdaspeed rx8 comes out, this will not even be debatable, because I believe the rx8 will be a faster vehicle then the 3g rx7 ever was out of showroom.I see great things to come from the future rx8s, and our first year models will be a far cry from the top of line one that we will be seeing in a few years. All I know is that I'll be trading mine in when a better, faster one comes out. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!

 

Viking, all I have to say about your post is:
From your lips to God's ears, or Mazda engineers ears--whoever helps us more. I would like to add that if the 8 is a success hopefully the next generation 7 will be a total beast.

 

I've owned all 3 generations of RX-7s. Like others have said there is no way the 8 will beat the 3rd gens in power. It has more torque, more HP and weighs less.

Turbo IIs aren't slow in stock form and with $500 or so worth of mods they run mid-low 14s.

In reality they are all very different cars. 1st gens are primitive by modern day standards, the fastest ones ran 0-60 in the mid 8 sec range and would get smoked by my minivan, solid rear axle, no rack and pinion steering, etc...

NA 2nd gens weren't much faster than the injected 1st gens but had a huge improvement in refinement. TIIs had more power with otherwise basically the same feel as NAs. A stock TII leaving the line with the AC on in the summer is easy to beat, no low end power...

3rd gens are monsters, still very potent in stock form compared to modern day "fast" import cars like the WRX, RSX, etc. Handling is exceptional but like others stated it gets a little twitchy at the limit. The 3rd gen lost some of the comfort and space of the 2nd gen but added a feel that is hard to describe. Reliability of the car in general is not bad, engine life is, well, SHORT.... Modded or stock, if you get 100K miles your pretty lucky.

Much to my disappointment I have not had a chance to drive an 8. I have looked at them, the interior and exterior is very nice, it is a different more sophisticated car than all 3 generation of RX-7. Don't compare them, they are different machines. The RX-8 shares a lot similar components with the 3rd gen. Not the same parts but similar suspension and drivetrain layouts, double control arms front and rear, PPF supports trans and diff, etc...

 

the 8 can beat the other N/A rotary cars as long as they are stock or close to stock. The 1st gen and 2nd gen would be beat. But if they had some serious mods(a street port or peripheral port) they would stomp the 8. A slightly modded TII(turbo 2nd gen) would take out the 8.

 

Id agree with the current conclusions. Although I think the FDs acceleration capablities are a little overrated.

 

Stock for stock, the 8 should beat any RX-7 except the FD.

As far as the price goes, if you adjust for inflation, the RX-8 costs about the same as a NON-TURBO 2nd gen!

 

White Comet

any reasons why you think this? just out of curiosity.

take care,
santino

 

the 3rd Gen RX7 was able to pull a 0-60 BEST of 4.9s stock--typically they pulled 5.1-5.3 all day. 1/4 mile times were low 13s to low 14s (Auto). I had an auto and stock I was able to break into 13.9s. After mods I was doing 0-60 in about 5.3s and mid 13s 1/4 times. The 3rd gen RX7 is a beast--stock it'll take out 350Zs, G35s, and RX8s all day long (if they are stock) Turbo cars respond very well to increased airflow--downpipe alone can net as much as 20HP because the exhaust system of the 3rd gen is very very restrictive. Most people do intake/catback/downpipe--however you can only really do two of those mods safely without upgrading the ECU-or at least adding a boost controller to prevent a spike-which can blow your engine. With those mods and a boost controller you can very easily have a 330HP 3000lb vehicle. I miss the speed of my 3rd gen (especially since I have an auto RX8 now); however once F/I kits come out aftermarket or Mazdaspeed RX8--I'm on it.

 

Stupid question here; in what year did Mazda started selling 3rd Generation RX-7s. In other words, what year models of the RX-7 are 3rd Generation. Thanks.

 

The FD was sold in the US in model years 1993 through 1995. I think a couple (literally) were left over 95's and sold as 96's.
I really don't know how anyone can say the FD's acceleration is overrated. Granted its 10 years later and there are several current cars that match it, but not much did when the FD was new. Maybe I am just used to my car (304 rwhp and 280 lb/ft of torque at the wheels and weighs 2800 lbs), but even relatively stock FD's seem pre damn fast IMHO.

 

The FD still commands much respect from anyone on the road. When I had my TII, people were always trying to race me - anything from BMW to Civics. When I had the FD, except for Vettes, Porsches and Supras. No one else ever dared. I usually got nods of approval from just about everyone.

The FD is just as fast as the new V8 S4's and are only a bit slower than the M3. In any book, that's fantastic for 10 year old technology. I compare them in respect to Grand Nationals, every knows by now of the huge stock and aftermarket potentials of the cars.

As far as between the FD and 8. I honestly believe that the 8 is all around a superior car. Stock vs. stock it will lose. But I think the aftermarket potential will be better.

 

This is exactly why i wanted to know why White Comet thinks an FD's acceleration is "overrated".

take care

santino

 

Because of the rotary's small displacement, low end torque has always been less than cars with similar HP. Mazda more than made up for that with light weight and superior balance.