Is the 8 really all that slow?
05-03-2011, 03:38 PM
#151
My dads old military buddy Guy Ray Shockley was a tree operator for years. He used to love trying to keep people from being able to develop a rhythm. Either adding a half second pause, or starting the tree with almost no delay set as soon as the second car staged, before they even stopped. I watched him do it time and time again.
05-03-2011, 03:41 PM
#153
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
My dads old military buddy Guy Ray Shockley was a tree operator for years. He used to love trying to keep people from being able to develop a rhythm. Either adding a half second pause, or starting the tree with almost no delay set as soon as the second car staged, before they even stopped. I watched him do it time and time again.
Why? Seems like a dick move to me.
Weird.
05-03-2011, 04:27 PM
#158
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mazda should've never sold the 8 without a turbo. The turbo should've been just to get the torque where it should've been. If a turbo 1.3 put out even 260 hp and over 200 lb of torque it would matter a lot. The torque would be down low and really affect acceleration. Also, it would be more modifiable. You would see over 300 hp 8 all over the road with bolt on upgrades. Mazda really dropped the ball on this one. They really put all of their eggs in the na engine without leaving room to go up. People talk about how 230 hp is a lot for a 1.3liter but if you look that's all Mazda can get out of it safely. This engine is maxed out. If 230 hp is all a maxed out engine can do then that is not a lot.
05-03-2011, 06:54 PM
#161
2010 Sport
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently, or historically? 'Cause in the recent past I can think of the Pontiac Solstice GXP, the Merkur XR4Ti, the Turbo Thunderbird, and the Mustang SVO. That's not an exhaustive list, but it's not necessarily rare cars, either.
05-03-2011, 08:10 PM
#163
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more people would buy the rx8 if it had that engine, and there would be more mods.
05-04-2011, 08:28 AM
#165
Registered
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
currently of course. i mean nobody really makes "good" affordable V4 turbo RWD car. i think the rx8 would be pretty cool if it had that. solstice is not a sports car lol. its more of a wanna be sports car.
more people would buy the rx8 if it had that engine, and there would be more mods.
more people would buy the rx8 if it had that engine, and there would be more mods.
The RX-8 with a 4 cyl is no longer an RX-8, it is an MX-8 and not nearly as appealing in my opinion. The rotary engine sitting front mid-ship and low is what makes this car really special. Any car manufacturer can make a Silvia type car but only Mazda can make something like the RX-8. It would be a sad day indeed if Mazda's flagship sports car came fitted with a 4 banger.
Besides, if you are really serious there are paths to power for the RX-8, you just have to pay to play. As it stands, Mazda builds its performance vehicles how they always have: underpowered vs the immediate competition but lighter with great handling and superb driver feedback.
05-04-2011, 08:45 AM
#166
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Sonett
I still see one every once in a blue moon.
05-04-2011, 01:35 PM
#167
Registered
I don't know if I agree with this because I really savor the fine throttle modulations possible only with an atmospheric engine.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
05-04-2011, 03:57 PM
#168
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if I agree with this because I really savor the fine throttle modulations possible only with an atmospheric engine.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
If a turbo version had come out from the beginning every car magazine would have said "stay away from the base model as it's underpowered", just as we say now regarding the automatic. The turbo version would be all over the car magazines still winning comparisons even without any changes over the years. It would be the afordable sport car benchmart for petes sake, and it surely would've sold more.
05-04-2011, 03:59 PM
#169
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know if I agree with this because I really savor the fine throttle modulations possible only with an atmospheric engine.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
I don't think I'd have purchased the RX-8 if it came turbo'ed.
I have to admit that I do enjoy driving my Speed6 when I need a turbo fix, but it feels more like a power tool than a fine instrument, and won't replace the connection I get with the RX-8.
05-04-2011, 04:28 PM
#171
Now imagine that same turbo power...in a rotary RX8. it would still be atmospheric as you say. If when you purchased your RX8 they had the current model 6speed as the base and they had an RX8S with a turbocharged engine putting out say 295 hp and 215 lbs torque, and you could've afforded the S, your'e saying you wouldn't have bought the S model with the turbo. That's crazy!
If a turbo version had come out from the beginning every car magazine would have said "stay away from the base model as it's underpowered", just as we say now regarding the automatic. The turbo version would be all over the car magazines still winning comparisons even without any changes over the years. It would be the afordable sport car benchmart for petes sake, and it surely would've sold more.
If a turbo version had come out from the beginning every car magazine would have said "stay away from the base model as it's underpowered", just as we say now regarding the automatic. The turbo version would be all over the car magazines still winning comparisons even without any changes over the years. It would be the afordable sport car benchmart for petes sake, and it surely would've sold more.
05-04-2011, 04:41 PM
#172
Registered
TALANZ7, you already called me crazy, and perhaps I admit that I am somewhat.
It's not all about the power for me.
Take for example, the the Infiniti G25 vs G37. To me the G25 drives better. The smaller VQ motor is significantly smoother and more responsive - not that I'd pick out an G25 to purchase. I don't think I'm alone in that some auto critics are with me on this.
There is a reason why people with big power sports cars also get the MX-5 or the Elise.
Particularly on a turbo car, if you have an FMIC setup, it just feels not as direct. I'm sure from a numbers standpoint, the 'lag' is trivial when dealing with lap times, but these are things that a driver feels.
In an ideal world, I'd have liked the RX-8 to make about 280whp, but with NA. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer an NA motor with the same output as a turboed motor provided they weigh similarly.
For me to actually spring for a turbo RX-8 over an NA version, the car needs to make at least 400whp, for it to overcome the enjoyment I get with the current model - the logic behind it is also crazy, I admit.
Wow, sorry for the tangent.
It's not all about the power for me.
Take for example, the the Infiniti G25 vs G37. To me the G25 drives better. The smaller VQ motor is significantly smoother and more responsive - not that I'd pick out an G25 to purchase. I don't think I'm alone in that some auto critics are with me on this.
There is a reason why people with big power sports cars also get the MX-5 or the Elise.
Particularly on a turbo car, if you have an FMIC setup, it just feels not as direct. I'm sure from a numbers standpoint, the 'lag' is trivial when dealing with lap times, but these are things that a driver feels.
In an ideal world, I'd have liked the RX-8 to make about 280whp, but with NA. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer an NA motor with the same output as a turboed motor provided they weigh similarly.
For me to actually spring for a turbo RX-8 over an NA version, the car needs to make at least 400whp, for it to overcome the enjoyment I get with the current model - the logic behind it is also crazy, I admit.
Wow, sorry for the tangent.
05-04-2011, 04:50 PM
#173
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest and most obvious argument is the economics of it. The price point that a turbo RX-8 would have hit would have been beyond what is realistically Mazda's market. The additional costs of development, production and anticipated warranty work would have ended up being a significant increase in costs for the buyer. It would have had significantly better performance, but the price point would have lowered the number of willing and able buyers. Perception in the performance world would have been great, but actual sales would probably not justify it in the long run.
Mazda already knows how to turbo a rotary and they already developed a turbo version of the 8. Now if you'rs saying a turbo renesis would be less reliable than a non turbo, I can't say I agree wholly with that. The rotary isn't the most reliable in any iteration so why not turbo it. Most likely, the main reason we didn't see a turbo renesis is because of emissions. I don't think Mazda, when they decided to make the 8 NA did it because they thought it would sell more. The 8 didn't sell well and Mazda had many years to correct its perceived weakness, and the biggest one is lack of power.
Mazda should develop the 16x with a turbo version from the jump so as to not repeat the same mistake. Rotaries make little torque, and the great equalizer has always been turbocharging.
05-04-2011, 05:00 PM
#174
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TALANZ7, you already called me crazy, and perhaps I admit that I am somewhat.
It's not all about the power for me.
Take for example, the the Infiniti G25 vs G37. To me the G25 drives better. The smaller VQ motor is significantly smoother and more responsive - not that I'd pick out an G25 to purchase. I don't think I'm alone in that some auto critics are with me on this.
There is a reason why people with big power sports cars also get the MX-5 or the Elise.
Particularly on a turbo car, if you have an FMIC setup, it just feels not as direct. I'm sure from a numbers standpoint, the 'lag' is trivial when dealing with lap times, but these are things that a driver feels.
In an ideal world, I'd have liked the RX-8 to make about 280whp, but with NA. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer an NA motor with the same output as a turboed motor provided they weigh similarly.
For me to actually spring for a turbo RX-8 over an NA version, the car needs to make at least 400whp, for it to overcome the enjoyment I get with the current model - the logic behind it is also crazy, I admit.
Wow, sorry for the tangent.
It's not all about the power for me.
Take for example, the the Infiniti G25 vs G37. To me the G25 drives better. The smaller VQ motor is significantly smoother and more responsive - not that I'd pick out an G25 to purchase. I don't think I'm alone in that some auto critics are with me on this.
There is a reason why people with big power sports cars also get the MX-5 or the Elise.
Particularly on a turbo car, if you have an FMIC setup, it just feels not as direct. I'm sure from a numbers standpoint, the 'lag' is trivial when dealing with lap times, but these are things that a driver feels.
In an ideal world, I'd have liked the RX-8 to make about 280whp, but with NA. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer an NA motor with the same output as a turboed motor provided they weigh similarly.
For me to actually spring for a turbo RX-8 over an NA version, the car needs to make at least 400whp, for it to overcome the enjoyment I get with the current model - the logic behind it is also crazy, I admit.
Wow, sorry for the tangent.
My main grip speed wise is that I don't think the 8 has enough passing power. It's 50-70 sucks and that's more important than 0-60. When I'm on a highway going up hill and I need to pass a truck the 8 is slower than a lot of "non-performance" cars.
05-04-2011, 05:04 PM
#175
because the fd rx7 did so well in sales right?
and trust me, if i knew buying a car that cost $40k+ and had the reliability of a pre-2000 jaguar i would stay away
and trust me, if i knew buying a car that cost $40k+ and had the reliability of a pre-2000 jaguar i would stay away
I don't agree with that. A turbo RX8 costing about 35-40 grand would sell, if the performance was there. People are paying 25 for the 8 now, 10 grand more for a turbo version is doable.
Mazda already knows how to turbo a rotary and they already developed a turbo version of the 8. Now if you'rs saying a turbo renesis would be less reliable than a non turbo, I can't say I agree wholly with that. The rotary isn't the most reliable in any iteration so why not turbo it. Most likely, the main reason we didn't see a turbo renesis is because of emissions. I don't think Mazda, when they decided to make the 8 NA did it because they thought it would sell more. The 8 didn't sell well and Mazda had many years to correct its perceived weakness, and the biggest one is lack of power.
Mazda should develop the 16x with a turbo version from the jump so as to not repeat the same mistake. Rotaries make little torque, and the great equalizer has always been turbocharging.
Mazda already knows how to turbo a rotary and they already developed a turbo version of the 8. Now if you'rs saying a turbo renesis would be less reliable than a non turbo, I can't say I agree wholly with that. The rotary isn't the most reliable in any iteration so why not turbo it. Most likely, the main reason we didn't see a turbo renesis is because of emissions. I don't think Mazda, when they decided to make the 8 NA did it because they thought it would sell more. The 8 didn't sell well and Mazda had many years to correct its perceived weakness, and the biggest one is lack of power.
Mazda should develop the 16x with a turbo version from the jump so as to not repeat the same mistake. Rotaries make little torque, and the great equalizer has always been turbocharging.
Last edited by mushkid; 05-04-2011 at 05:22 PM.