How .5 seconds impacts the perception of the RX8
03-25-2006 | 11:22 PM
#51
the giant tastetickles
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
From: in the basement
The average joe only cares about spec sheet figures and enjoy the head rest banging feel. If the 8 has high torque at the bottom rpm or a figure of at least 280hp (not applicable outside Asia since you can get monster hp machines), regardless of whether it perform well or not, the average joe would say its fast coz most of them don't know the meaning of "Smooth is fast", all they know is "I enjoy the G" to which I reply "Get a rollercoaster ride if you want G"
03-25-2006 | 11:40 PM
#53
rotorized!!!
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
From: San Luis Obispo, CA
Originally Posted by 1.3L
First off, the Renesis redlines about 800 RPM higher than the S2000 engine, so you're wrong on that point. Secondly, you admitted that the Renesis is a smooth engine, so it appears that it is probably smoother than most piston engines, particularly at high RPM's, so your "no trait" claim is also off.
and I don't consider engine smoothness to be a big plus on a sports car engine when compared to other factors such as acceleration, speed and fuel economy.
03-25-2006 | 11:52 PM
#54
The bottom line is we all have a mind of our own and we have free will and we can make our own choices ,,,
And I choose the Mazda RX-8 for its drivability and performance and styling !!!
"I CHOOSE THE RX-8 !"
And I choose the Mazda RX-8 for its drivability and performance and styling !!!
"I CHOOSE THE RX-8 !"
03-26-2006 | 12:03 AM
#55
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
From: PNW
:Sigh: The thread that won't die, for some reason.
I own a 2004 S2000, bought brand new. I own a 2004 RX-8, bought brand new. I drive both regularly.
The RX-8 is neither more nor less "smooth" than the S2000, if by "smooth" one means lack of apparent engine vibration.
That's a simple fact.
The RX-8 is much quieter to drive, for the simple reason that Mazda spent money and weight insulating the passenger compartment from the road, engine and wind noise, while Honda did not do that on the S2000. But both engines are equally vibration-free.
I have no idea why anyone considers a high redline a wonderful trait (owners of the older S2000s trumpet that all the time, for some reason, ignoring the greater torque and actual power of the newer models). Personally, I couldn't care less what my car's redline is, so long as each gear has a reasonably broad usable power band. And, in fact, the AP2 S2000, with its "measly" 8000rpm redline, has a much broader usable power band than the RX-8.
Otherwise, why do we insist on arguing about which of these two fine--but very different--cars is "better?" If space and creature comforts are important to you, the S2000's not for you; if a two-seat roadster is what you want, the RX-8's the wrong place to be looking.
I own a 2004 S2000, bought brand new. I own a 2004 RX-8, bought brand new. I drive both regularly.
The RX-8 is neither more nor less "smooth" than the S2000, if by "smooth" one means lack of apparent engine vibration.
That's a simple fact.
The RX-8 is much quieter to drive, for the simple reason that Mazda spent money and weight insulating the passenger compartment from the road, engine and wind noise, while Honda did not do that on the S2000. But both engines are equally vibration-free.
I have no idea why anyone considers a high redline a wonderful trait (owners of the older S2000s trumpet that all the time, for some reason, ignoring the greater torque and actual power of the newer models). Personally, I couldn't care less what my car's redline is, so long as each gear has a reasonably broad usable power band. And, in fact, the AP2 S2000, with its "measly" 8000rpm redline, has a much broader usable power band than the RX-8.
Otherwise, why do we insist on arguing about which of these two fine--but very different--cars is "better?" If space and creature comforts are important to you, the S2000's not for you; if a two-seat roadster is what you want, the RX-8's the wrong place to be looking.
03-26-2006 | 01:05 AM
#57
Student Driver
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
From: Kansas
I agree with most all the positive things being said in this thread.
I'm (like most here) passionate about my 8 (even though its an A/T).
This is my second rotary (93' RX7).
We have to be passionate (or crazy) to tolerate all the quirks that go with owning this car.
Perhaps it's a love-hate relationship....
My main motivation for owning (and keeping) this car is its unique styling, it's not a cookie-cutter...
Will I own another RX? I hope so!
I'm (like most here) passionate about my 8 (even though its an A/T).
This is my second rotary (93' RX7).
We have to be passionate (or crazy) to tolerate all the quirks that go with owning this car.
Perhaps it's a love-hate relationship....
My main motivation for owning (and keeping) this car is its unique styling, it's not a cookie-cutter...
Will I own another RX? I hope so!
03-26-2006 | 02:43 AM
#58
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 414
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Originally Posted by daisuke
I may get myself flamed here, but you have to admit that FOR A CAR, the rotary engine simply has no traits that make it superior to a reciprocating engine.
In the eyes of the average car owner, it's fuel economy is worse than that of similarly powered engines and it revs higher than some engines, but not all, case in point is the engine from the S2000 which you all know about I'm sure.
The rotary has fewer moving parts, but what does this matter to a person that is just going to lease the car for 2 years, they'll never see it to old age so they won't be experiencing engine troubles no matter what car they buy unless it's badly designed. So what is the practical upshot of buying a rotary powered car for the average joe? well the smoothness... and that's really about it. I must also admit that under the same arguement it shouldn't matter to the average joe if the engine is completely alien since he'll never touch it either under the same 2 year criteria.
Now before you all nail me to the nearest piston engine, I LOVE the sound of the rotary, my next car will be a rotary and it's the oddball-ness of the engine that entices me for the exact same reason. but that's just the point, the rotary only appeals to those who like the uniqueness.
Now, engine aside, I really don't see what's not to like about the RX-8 from an aesthetic and handling point of view because it shines everywhere else. That just said, I'll be buying an 8 primarily because it has a rotary, the fact that it looks good enough to provoke wet dreams and handles just as good only reinforces it. (and yet if it was hideous, had a rotary and still handled well I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, think rotary scion xB
)
I wonder, how many ppl here have run across 8 owners who don't know their car's engine is special?
In the eyes of the average car owner, it's fuel economy is worse than that of similarly powered engines and it revs higher than some engines, but not all, case in point is the engine from the S2000 which you all know about I'm sure.
The rotary has fewer moving parts, but what does this matter to a person that is just going to lease the car for 2 years, they'll never see it to old age so they won't be experiencing engine troubles no matter what car they buy unless it's badly designed. So what is the practical upshot of buying a rotary powered car for the average joe? well the smoothness... and that's really about it. I must also admit that under the same arguement it shouldn't matter to the average joe if the engine is completely alien since he'll never touch it either under the same 2 year criteria.
Now before you all nail me to the nearest piston engine, I LOVE the sound of the rotary, my next car will be a rotary and it's the oddball-ness of the engine that entices me for the exact same reason. but that's just the point, the rotary only appeals to those who like the uniqueness.
Now, engine aside, I really don't see what's not to like about the RX-8 from an aesthetic and handling point of view because it shines everywhere else. That just said, I'll be buying an 8 primarily because it has a rotary, the fact that it looks good enough to provoke wet dreams and handles just as good only reinforces it. (and yet if it was hideous, had a rotary and still handled well I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, think rotary scion xB
)I wonder, how many ppl here have run across 8 owners who don't know their car's engine is special?
I won't flame you!
You gave a side of the argument that should be considered! Sure it has some traits that make it superior in some ways to your average piston engines. One of the reasons the 8 can handle like it does is because of how far back they were able to put the engine due to it's compact size. In a lot of other aspects I would say it is equal (it can be a reliable engine but that's mostly seen in the NA form) and in some it is lower on the hierarchy of engines (of course fuel consumption). I won't say it is superior overall but by no means is it a lesser engine. I am willing to say it is on par with the piston engine in what it can offer for performance cars. The FD being both a good and bad example!
I'm not sure where it is anymore but somewhere in this site someone quoted what the Renesis can actually sustain and the 8 is not doing it I think they said something along the lines of 13-14,000rpm but don't take that as fact just something I think I read here at some point in time! I'm not saying a piston engine cannot do it but I think it would take considerably more work to do it. I think for the moment the redline for the S2k is the ceiling for the production piston engines unless the average joe can afford a Ferrari.
03-26-2006 | 02:58 AM
#59
Klingon Grammarian
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 1
From: Bellevue, WA
Originally Posted by yiksing
The average joe only cares about spec sheet figures and enjoy the head rest banging feel.
03-26-2006 | 03:04 AM
#60
Klingon Grammarian
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 1
From: Bellevue, WA
Originally Posted by saturn
Their penchant for capricious petulance is most certainly quite troublesome.
03-26-2006 | 03:54 AM
#61
Registered Pimp
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by rx8wannahave
Why .5 sec…because that was basically the difference between the RX7 and RX8 and also what would have put the RX8 slightly ahead, equal, or slightly behind it’s main competition at it’s price range.
With that off of my chest, let me agree with you completely... It's amazing.
03-26-2006 | 07:12 AM
#63
I don't buy Kool-Aid
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,823
Likes: 2
From: Vegas Baby!
Originally Posted by Red Devil
Your probably right. If this car hit 60 in 5.5 and the 1/4 in 14 flat, it probably would have better sales in America. That said, the reputation of the rotary coupled with the 8's reputation for being difficult to mod doesn't help. If the 8 was easy to extract power from, it probably would get more sales also.
Really, though, this argument can be made for any car.
Really, though, this argument can be made for any car.
03-26-2006 | 08:23 AM
#64
the giant tastetickles
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
From: in the basement
Originally Posted by Krankor
This is laughably false. What you are describing is the average gearhead. The average joe couldn't quote you spec one of his car. The fact that a forum like this necessarily has a high population of gearheads is hardly indicative of the world as a whole.
03-26-2006 | 09:14 AM
#65
M0D Squad -charter member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Check the back of Car & Driver magazine sometime. Listed are the 0-60 times of all the vehicles they've tested.
In the RX-8 price range, there are very few that have similar 0-60 times.
The RX-8 being slow is perception, not reality.
In the RX-8 price range, there are very few that have similar 0-60 times.
The RX-8 being slow is perception, not reality.
03-26-2006 | 09:36 AM
#66
Bummed, but bring on OU!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,036
Likes: 1
From: Charleston, SC
0.5 seconds difference isn't always that impressive.
The difference between a '94 Honda Civic EX coupe and a 2000 Civic EX coupe is 0.4sec (8.8 to 8.4), but no one cares.
The difference between a new C6 and a '01 C5 is 0.6 seconds (4.2 to 4.8) a bit more impressive only because of the 4.x, but still both quite fast.
The difference between a '93 LT1 Camaro and a '98 LS1 Camaro is also 0.6sec (5.7 to 5.1) which is the most impressive of the 3, because the 93 runs pretty even with an S2000, but the 98 is in a different league. This is the situation the 8 is in, except it's trying to catch up to the S2000, 350Z, LT1's, etc. Some may say that the 8 isn't a 1/4mile or 0-60 car, but those are 2 of the benchmarks by which all cars are measured, and sports car buyers put a lot of weight on these numbers.
Disclaimer: all times were grabbed off the internet, and I'm not saying they are 100% accurate, but they are only use for comparison purposes.
The difference between a '94 Honda Civic EX coupe and a 2000 Civic EX coupe is 0.4sec (8.8 to 8.4), but no one cares.
The difference between a new C6 and a '01 C5 is 0.6 seconds (4.2 to 4.8) a bit more impressive only because of the 4.x, but still both quite fast.
The difference between a '93 LT1 Camaro and a '98 LS1 Camaro is also 0.6sec (5.7 to 5.1) which is the most impressive of the 3, because the 93 runs pretty even with an S2000, but the 98 is in a different league. This is the situation the 8 is in, except it's trying to catch up to the S2000, 350Z, LT1's, etc. Some may say that the 8 isn't a 1/4mile or 0-60 car, but those are 2 of the benchmarks by which all cars are measured, and sports car buyers put a lot of weight on these numbers.
Disclaimer: all times were grabbed off the internet, and I'm not saying they are 100% accurate, but they are only use for comparison purposes.
03-26-2006 | 09:41 AM
#67
i pwn therefore i am
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,332
Likes: 2
From: Delaware, USA
Originally Posted by Krankor
It is indeed a proclivity which should perhaps inspire prudence. Still, I shall not appease them by stooping to the linguistic level of your antepenultimate post.
03-26-2006 | 10:06 AM
#68
Registered
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,866
Likes: 3
From: Buford, GA USA
Well... here is turn 7 at Road Atlanta a week ago: RX7 vs RX8
Then again... Tim Benton's RX7 was hitting 150 down that stretch.
Then again... Tim Benton's RX7 was hitting 150 down that stretch.
03-26-2006 | 11:59 AM
#69
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by rxeightr
Check the back of Car & Driver magazine sometime. Listed are the 0-60 times of all the vehicles they've tested.
That's quite a extensive list, if you ask me.
If I may add just a little bit more fuel to the fire. What is a more telling tale of the RX-8's performance is it's standing street start (5-60). The STi, for instance, which has it's AWD advantage negated in a street start still manages a 5.8s run. IIRC, the RX-7 FD is in the same neighborhood or even lower. The RX-8 on the other hand, can only manage a 7.5s run when you take away the ability to do an 8000 RPM clutch dump. The difference between the RX-8's 0-60 and 5-60 is significantly higher than almost all other cars out there. The difference of 2 seconds is basically twice the difference of what other cars run.
03-26-2006 | 12:12 PM
#70
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Ok, will do. List of cars with an MSRP under $50K that have similar or better 1/4 mile times as listed by Car and Driver: Acura TL, Audi S4, Audi TT, BMW M3, BMW Z4, BMW 325i, BMW 330, Cadillac CTS-V, Chevy Cobalt SS, Chevy Corvette, Chevy SSR, Chevy Trailblazer SS, Chrysler Crossfire, Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger, Dodge Magnum, Dodge SRT-4, Ford Mustang GT, Honda Accord EX, Honda S2000, Infiniti G35, Infiniti M45, Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, Lexus IS350, Lotus Elise, Lotus Exige, Mazdaspeed6, MB C350, Mini Cooper S JCW, Mitsu Eclipse, Mitsu Evo, Nissan 350Z, Pontiac Grand Prix GXP, Pontiac GTO, Saturn Ion Red Line, Subaru Forester 2.5XT, Subaru Impreza WRX, Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Subaru Legacy 2.5GT, Subaru Outback 2.5XT, Toyota Avalon, VW Passat, Volvo S60R.
I said it to Ike, and I'll say it to you.
YOU BETTER FACT-CHECK your list. I'm not going to do it for you.
There are many vehicles you have listed that do not have better times than the RX-8.
You and your buddy, Ike, have lost all credibility.
Or, let's try it this way: You agree to pay me $10 for every car you listed as having a faster 0-60 time than the RX-8, which is in error.
If you agree to do this, I'll go ahead and do your fact-checking for you.
Deal?
03-26-2006 | 12:45 PM
#72
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
From: Apalachin, NY
Originally Posted by RotoRocket
I said it to Ike, and I'll say it to you.
YOU BETTER FACT-CHECK your list. I'm not going to do it for you.
There are many vehicles you have listed that do not have better times than the RX-8.
You and your buddy, Ike, have lost all credibility.
Or, let's try it this way: You agree to pay me $10 for every car you listed as having a faster 0-60 time than the RX-8, which is in error.
If you agree to do this, I'll go ahead and do your fact-checking for you.
Deal?
YOU BETTER FACT-CHECK your list. I'm not going to do it for you.
There are many vehicles you have listed that do not have better times than the RX-8.
You and your buddy, Ike, have lost all credibility.
Or, let's try it this way: You agree to pay me $10 for every car you listed as having a faster 0-60 time than the RX-8, which is in error.
If you agree to do this, I'll go ahead and do your fact-checking for you.
Deal?
Originally Posted by playdoh43
^^^he didnt say, "better times than the rx-8"... he said "SIMILAR or better times"
03-26-2006 | 02:18 PM
#73
Klingon Grammarian
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 1
From: Bellevue, WA
Originally Posted by yiksing
Your statement is more laughable since I never said the average joe could quote, I only say they would care about spec sheet as in put a car mag in front of them, they would only go look at the higher hp number and say that car is faster. I don't know how different the average joe in your country is but that's what I get from all the average joe I met.
03-26-2006 | 03:32 PM
#74
Blue By You
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,717
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee
Originally Posted by RotoRocket
I said it to Ike, and I'll say it to you.
YOU BETTER FACT-CHECK your list. I'm not going to do it for you.
There are many vehicles you have listed that do not have better times than the RX-8.
You and your buddy, Ike, have lost all credibility.
Or, let's try it this way: You agree to pay me $10 for every car you listed as having a faster 0-60 time than the RX-8, which is in error.
If you agree to do this, I'll go ahead and do your fact-checking for you.
Deal?
YOU BETTER FACT-CHECK your list. I'm not going to do it for you.
There are many vehicles you have listed that do not have better times than the RX-8.
You and your buddy, Ike, have lost all credibility.
Or, let's try it this way: You agree to pay me $10 for every car you listed as having a faster 0-60 time than the RX-8, which is in error.
If you agree to do this, I'll go ahead and do your fact-checking for you.
Deal?
03-26-2006 | 04:11 PM
#75
Wut da F Y'all lookin' @!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 414
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Originally Posted by sti_eric
Exactly. Because of differences in testing conditions, I took cars that had the same 1/4 mile (14.5) +.2s. The worst 1/4 mile time on the list is 14.7. It would probably be better to take 14.5 +.5s, but that would put a lot more cars on the list than I wanted to type. I also use 1/4 mile time instead of 0-60 time since 1/4 mile time is a much better gauge of performance.
In all honesty, while I don't deny those cars you listed are close in acceleration, the average joe more than likely can't afford a car over the $30k mark. The only thing I am suggesting by this comment is that while it may not be the fastest out there it is in no way outdone by the average car that you run across everyday. As for the "guage of performance" thing maybe you should rethink that comment. The mentality is wrong to call acceleration "performance" instead of what it is, 1 aspect of performance. It's as if people discount a cars ability to maintain speed through a turn or change direction or even slow down as performance. While I love some of the classic american musclecars I think they have tainted the view of what a sports car can or should be. Please don't perceive me as someone who is stuck on the RX-8 as the be all end all of cars, I have a bunch of cars that I consider great cars including a lot the american muscle cars, exotics, and the likes of the STI (I am a former Evo owner after all and I didn't lose it by choice). All I am pointing out is that the RX-8 is an impressive car for one that is compromised in the very concept of it. I mean the back seat, the softened suspension (and it still handles that well)! Makes me wonder what the numbers would look like if it actually were the RX-7's replacement and dropped some of those compromises. It would lose some weight and more than likely it would do all the things that people seem to expect of it and then some! Just imagine for a second!