Who was talking about a .1 second difference? Specs from car mags are nearly useless, but if you compare the range of values they do tell you alot about the car. I was just pointing out that saying the rx-7 is in the low 5's vs. the 8 which is 5.9 is masking half the story. The real story is that 7's ranged from 4.9-5.something and the 8 from 5.9-6.something. Which on average is about a second difference, which you can definetly feel.

Whether you care about the difference is an entirely different story.

 

Why are people so obessed over torque? Most people don't even know what it is. I currently drive a 2004 Audi S4. I looove the power but found the RX8 more satisfying because it is a full thousand pounds lighter and revving connects you more to the motor in my opinion. If you want the torque, you have to forfeit the weight and balance. 350Z and G35 coupe are 50/50 but weigh close to 3500 pounds.

My advice is to drive your top favorite sports cars. I think you'll find the 8's price and handling package still the most attractive. You can get 05s still for 25 or less.

 

What does anything in this thread have to do with an S4, 350Z, or G35? The guy is asking about the difference between his RX-7 and an RX-8. The RX-7 has gobs of power and weighs 200 lbs less.

 

There's no reason a high torque car needs to be heavy though... Think corvette z06. Or rx-7 with an ls1.

Audi just makes heavy cars, I drive a 2000 S4 and a 3rd gen rx-7 so I know what you mean. I'm planning to get rid of the s4 and buy an rx-8 or new gti which is why I'm reading up on people's impressions.

 

Owning both, I would tend to agree with this assessment. And I doubt the 7 has more sound dampening than the 8.

 

I don't get why people are so obsessed about 50/50 weight distribution, most of the best handling cars in the world have a bias.

 

The 8 isn't really 50/50 more like 48/52

 

The fd is way faster but it felt more like a race car then a street car. The 8 is the better daily driver by far and it's not slow. It's just not fast. It's quick.

 

So if logic holds, some of the best handling cars in the world have a bias. The 8 has a bias, therefore, the 8 is one of the best handling cars in the world. Thanks, Ike, for clearing that up.

 

You mean poor fallacious logic

 

50/50 distribution AND a low center of gravity ARE HUGE factors in a cars handling, and tuners can do little to overcome this if a car is lacking in these areas. Add in low weight, rear wheel drive, tight chassis, and a number of other factors (i.e. the 8 has longer links in its suspension than the 7, kinda works like a longer swingarm on a motorcycle to "plant" the wheel), and the 8 has few equals handling wise.

That said, good suspension tuning and gripy tires can still make a pig "handle." Many "enthusiasts" equate the best handling cars to those with the highest ultimate grip, which is nonsense. A great handling car allows an average driver to place the car in the exact spot desired, control slides predictably, drive in any weather without drama, have a perfect balance of understeer and oversteer with excellent transition, no twitchy-ness, endless feel and feedback, etc....all combined with ultimate grip. A seasoned driver even appreciates these traits even more. And doing all this in a ride that doesn't beat you or your passengers up is the ultimate. I don't know of any other car that does ALL OF THIS as well as the 8.

 

If you actually read the original post you would see that his biggest concern is the lack of torque. So therefore I respond by saying torque is overrated. Clear now?

 

And, as posted by others, you do not need to have a heavy car to have torque. But, thanks for giving me a quote that I can put in my sig.

 

What is your definition of torque?

 

whoever traded in their 04 S4... you are crazy. The best AWD ever, german build and luxury interior, and a V8 engine. I would even get the B5's with twin turbo, only that generation has tons of problems... wheel bearing goes out way too damn early along with electrical crap.

 

I think the dude is just misinformed and doesn't know that torque + your gearing= acceleration. So even though the 8 doesn't have that push-you-back-in-your-seat feel, it can still accelerate respectably because of gear ratios.

 

I don't think wantan8 was saying you need a heavy car for torque, he was correctly saying that high torque cars usually have larger displacement engines and are therefore usually heavier, like his examples of 350/G35's vs. an 8.

The exception is sometimes turbos in small displacement engines. But thats still not the answer for me. I could do without turbo lag (never drove one without it), annoying turbo/wastegate whistling, but mostly the annoying way turbos hang on to revs after shifting.

Otherwise I agree; torque is overrated. I used to ride a 600cc sportbike that redlined at 14000RPM, no torque, actually very little power of any sort under 10000rpm, but it would still run away from any car.

Give me a screamer rather than a grunter any day!

 

I read it as saying that because his Audi is overweight, he doesn't really benefit from the torque of the engine. Its wasted moving the heavy car. But put that same engine in an S3 (or rx-7/rx-8) and you'd have a much different experience. The S4 is heavy because of the big v-8, but its also heavy because its a big car with awd and all kinds of creature comforts.

We're way off topic now though, I think there is at least a general consensus that the rx-8 will not pull the same way out of a corner as an rx-7?

 

well the ariel atom does, and it's as much fun as driving a dragster on a quarter mile, but then again... it's about as practical as one too.

the 8 is fun and as practical as sports cars come, excellent trade-off if you ask me

 

How is a car like the RX-8 (which makes no power under 5000 rpm) any different from a turbo car that has a little bit of lag under say 2500 rpm?

Saying "torque is overrated" is completely asinine. Torque is what makes your car go. Please don't make the inane argument that horsepower is what makes your car go - torque and horsepower are directly related. EVERYONE wants more torque/horsepower. Hence the horsepower wars in the 60s and the horsepower wars going on today. Also, one needn't look any further than commericals on TV (especially truck commercials), where they use the amount of torque as a main selling point.

 

Wow guys, props for bringing up another NEW hijack.

 

have you ever driven a turbo? what you get from a turbo is a kick of torque when the turbine kicks in, the 8 just provides a smooth power curve. this is mostly because turbocharged engines are optimised to run on boost, whereas N/A engines are optimized not to. this is why a turboed engine has no power off boost compared to a N/A engine and why a turbo engine with a busted turbo is worthless. but you are right in that power and torque are directly related, it all depends on the way an engine is set up.

you see the big diesel trucks and they really don't have that much power. A top of the line engine for trucks made by cummins has only 565hp but produces 1850 ft-lbs of torque. torque matters here because it's pulling power you want and not acceleration or top speed. your point about torque being a selling point on trucks is true but it doesn't apply in the same way to cars. And don't point out that ridiculous dodge truck with the viper engine, that thing isn't and never could be a work truck.

 

Pardon my continuation of the off-topic tangent, but...

1. Turbo lag itself doesn't bother me in that I don't mind shifting to keep the RPMs up. But many turbo cars have a lot less throttle response, which does bother me.
2. Torque is overrated.
3. You're mixing terms: You should compare torque to power (concepts) or foot-pounds to horsepower (units). Also, you think that it's inane to say that power makes your car go because torque and power are directly related. But you don't think that it's inane to say that torque makes your car go?
4. No, torque is used to sell trucks because in order to pull a large load from a stop you need a lot of force at the wheels. You can't (and/or don't want to) gear a truck so that it's running at high engine speed from a stop, so you can't get a lot of force at the wheels from a stop without a lot of engine torque. If you were towing something *only* at high speeds, you could do it without much torque (though you probably wouldn't want to run at high-RPMs all the time).

 

You think you know what you're talking about but you probably don't. I don't know on what planet you read that I said a heavy car has to have torque? Enlighten me.

 

You implied that to have torque the car needs to be heavy, its slightly different.